I asked the ADF about whether they could have stepped in and provided the correct information that would have avoided the need for Special Forces veteran Heston Russell to take legal action to clear his name when the ABC published incorrect and defamatory information about him.
All Defence needed to do was clarify to the ABC that Heston wasn’t even in Afghanistan at the time of the allegations and a multi-million dollar legal case could have been avoided.
The Generals wouldn’t even lift a finger to help one of their own Special Forces veterans and they wonder why they have a recruitment crisis.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The next line of questioning goes to the topic of Heston Russell. How much, roughly, does the defence department spend each year on legal costs?
Mr D’Amico: I don’t have the exact figures in front of me, but I think our expenditure last year was around the $150 million mark in total.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you give me an accurate one on notice, please.
Mr D’Amico: Yes, I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Did the defence department provide financial or legal assistance to former special forces commander Heston Russell in his defamation case against the ABC recently?
Mr D’Amico: I don’t believe so.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Mr D’Amico: That was a private civil matter. He commenced those defamation proceedings. The way that we provide legal support to former ADF members would be through what I’d describe as a LACE payment made under the Legal Service Directions, and that just doesn’t allow for that sort of circumstance.
Senator ROBERTS: Wouldn’t it have been in the best interests of the defence department to ensure Mr Russell won his defamation case so he could clear his name and the reputation of the November platoon and the
Australian Defence Force in general?
Mr D’Amico: I’m not sure if that’s a comment or a question.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it not be in the best interests? It’s a question?
Mr D’Amico: That’s a difficult—
Mr Moriarty: It’s in the best interests of the department for the law to be upheld. There’s been a legal process.
Senator ROBERTS: I see that. He won, but that’s not your judgement to start. I get that. Nonetheless, to be seen to leave one of your senior people out in the cold doesn’t augur well for people in the armed forces still. Mr Russell spent 16 years in the Australian Defence Force and led November platoon in Afghanistan. He was the subject of a vicious smear campaign by the ABC, who wrongly accused him of war crimes, and the judge was pretty scathing in his comments about the ABC. The Federal Court has now ordered the ABC to pay Mr Russell more than $400,000, plus costs. Why did a veteran have to fight this public battle alone, at his own expense?
Senator McAllister: May I make a number of essentially procedural points? There are three things. The first is that officials have given you advice that they complied with the policy settings that are relevant for this legal assistance that may be provided to personnel. I think the second is that, in asking them to make comment about the appropriateness of those steps, you’re effectively asking them to offer an opinion about the current policy settings. The third thing is just to remind you that Defence was not a party to these proceedings and it’s not really appropriate to ask them, as I think you’ve done just now, to comment on a civil matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what do you say in response?
CHAIR: Last question.
Senator ROBERTS: I have one more after this. What’s your opinion?
Senator McAllister: I think the officials have given you advice that they have sought to comply with the standard arrangements that are in place for providing legal support to personnel. I don’t have any more to add in
relation to that.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the Department of Defence been in contact with Heston Russell during his three-year ordeal? Did the Department of Defence attend his trial in the Federal Court? Has Defence reached out to
Russell after his victory over the ABC?
Rear Adm. Wolski: I’m not aware of any official contact with Mr Russell. This was a civil defamation case brought about by a private person and it’s not appropriate to comment any further on it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Mr D’Amico: Senator, I can update you on a number. Earlier, I gave an approximate figure of $150 million— in fact, it’s $155,570,000.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got a good memory, or you’re accurate.
Mr D’Amico: It was close.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I have another question about the Heston Russell case. Do you accept that much of the time, effort and expense in the Russell and ABC defamation matter could have been avoided if Defence had simply advised the ABC that the November platoon wasn’t even in Afghanistan when Heston Russell was first accused?
Senator McAllister: I think advice was provided earlier that, in the general issue of the civil matter between the ABC and Heston Russell, this is a private matter and Defence were not a party to the case. I think you are now asking Defence to speculate about events that may or may not have happened. I’m not sure that they’re going to be able to offer you an opinion of that kind.
Senator ROBERTS: I can see where you’re coming from.
Senator McAllister: We don’t wish to be unhelpful, but I think there are a number of elements of your question that make it difficult for officials to provide an answer in this forum.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the SAS people are very close-knit; they have a long association after they leave the Army that’s very much entrenched in comradeship and mateship. I would have thought that the Department of Defence would want to cultivate that because that’s our key strategic weapon as I understand it from talking to former and current members of the ADF. Anyway, that’s fine.
