Posts

End Secrecy in Defence

,

Transparency and accountability are essential in a democracy, yet this government continues to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, especially when it comes to the higher brass in the Department of Defence.

The refusal to release the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force isn’t about national security—it’s about avoiding embarrassment. We need a process that allows senators to confidentially review sensitive documents, ensuring accountability while protecting the public interest. We must demand a government that serves the people, not itself.

One Nation will fight for our Defence Force personnel to be treated fairly by senior officers. One standard must apply to all.

Transcript

Well, the minister’s explanation is pitiful. Look at paragraph (a)(iv) of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge’s motion. Senator Wong failed to comply. She did not provide the names. Who has been consulted in relation to the release of the report of the 20-year review of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force? Why is the government continuing to hide? This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. This is the government’s response. The claim isn’t that there was anything classified in the report of the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force that Senator Lambie had been seeking; the claim the minister makes is that this report wasn’t meant to be released because the government didn’t want it to be released, not that national security was under threat, not that there was classified information in it. The government didn’t want it to be released because that would be embarrassing and they would be asked to do something about it. That’s not good enough.  

An order to produce documents that passes this Senate is constitutionally superior to acts of law. The government doesn’t get to decide that they can toss those orders in the bin. This is a rare occasion where we get to see the report even though the government refused to hand it over. Credit must go to Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge for pushing this and to their offices for managing to get a copy of the report. Usually, as senators, we’re left in the dark. The government makes a public interest immunity claim and refuses to hand over anything. The government tells us that if this report was released the sky would fall in, that there would be an earthquake that shatters the public interest. Now, as senators, we’re quite reasonable and responsible. We know that truth reinforces truth. While we might desperately want that information we somewhat trust that the government hasn’t lied to our face and that there would be an actual risk to the public interest if the document were published. Yesterday and today show once and for all, yet again, that the government is completely undeserving of that trust.  

The minister’s explanation clearly isn’t sufficient, and the current process for ordering documents is failing the Australian people and the senators seeking information on behalf of the people—information that belongs to the Australian people. To that end, I’ll again be proposing a new, additional way for handling orders for documents. When ministers make a public interest immunity claim, the claimed harm results from releasing the document to the public. There’s a way to make sure this is a win-win. I’ll go through it again. It’s making sure sensitive information isn’t released while at the same time ensuring senators get the information needed to make informed decisions. The way to do this is to establish a process for senators to confidentially review ordered documents without releasing them to the public.  

This proposal may sound familiar to some. I first raised it in 2022, and this Senate supported a reference to the Procedure Committee for inquiry. With respect to the senators on that committee, the response was lacking. The inquiry was given four months to report on the issue, did not seek any submissions and produced the Procedure Committee’s first report of 2023 of a towering two pages. While the committee declined to endorse the proposal, they did confirm that it’s feasible. The committee committed to further report on the process for the order for the production of documents later in 2023. No report was delivered. Imagine that. Given the increased frequency of orders for the production of documents and the nearly blanket ban the government seems to be applying on transparency, it’s time to deal with this issue again. 

This proposal is relatively simple. If the minister makes a public interest immunity claim, they wouldn’t have to release it to the public but they would have to release it to us—the senators—confidentially. A majority of the Senate could then decide whether the minister’s claim is legitimate and the document deserves to be kept secret from the public. It’s true that, just like a normal order for the production of documents, the minister could refuse to hand over the documents to the committee. Since no harm could flow from public disclosure in this process, it would be apparent that the only harm the government would want to avoid would be embarrassment. That gives us a better reason to apply sanctions for noncompliance, which the Senate is rightly cautious to do under the current process. In making a public interest immunity claim the minister would be automatically required to nominate a standing committee to receive the document, and only senators would be allowed to review it.  

I will be submitting a notice of motion with some draft amendments to the standing orders for senators to consider over the break. I welcome their input and any suggestions to make these changes better. The Australian public deserves transparency, and as the Senate, the house of review, we must deliver accountability on this government. Recent weeks in this chamber have shown debacle after debacle. The government is in chaos. Australia has a chaotic government, and the people pay for that—enlisted people and veterans pay for it. The Senate’s scrutiny will help the government to govern and reduce the chaos. We are willing to help you, and that’s what our help will do. The people deserve the truth, openness and accountability. (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Defence Deflects and Distracts from Royal Commission Results

,

Just days after the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission published it’s final report, the Government announced it would be stripping medals from soldiers in Afghanistan. Instead of promising to implement the findings of the Royal Commission, the government doubled down on the kind of hypocrisy that is killing people. While some are stripped of medals, the previous Chief of Defence Force, Angus Campbell, still has his medal for commanding those soldiers. One standard should apply to everyone.

To implement the findings of the Royal Commission, we need a complete clean out of the senior people in Defence who let the problem get this bad.

Transcript

Let’s listen to words to my Senate office team today from a brave ADF veteran with a distinguished record of serving our country and now serving veterans across the country. He opens with a quote from British judge Sturgess: ‘Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz hotel.’ Announcing this cart-before-the-horse decision today, just three days after the release of the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide and a day after the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—a day that forever changed the lives of these men and women—and on R U Okay Day in Australia is nothing short of cruel. 

Still, the motives are clear: to divert attention from the failures of Defence Force leadership and from the government and once again shift the blame onto a few men from the SASR who were in action. The timing is no coincidence. It’s a calculated move to protect those at the top while scapegoating those who served on the front lines. If medals are to be revoked from those at the tactical and operational levels for their soldiers’ alleged war crimes from allegations from over a decade ago, ultimate responsibility must rest with the commanders in charge at the time. Accountability should start at the top, with those who approved the missions and made the strategic decisions. Without holding senior leadership accountable, this action becomes nothing more than scapegoating those on the ground. Accountability must start at the top. 

Let’s keep going with the ADF veteran’s words: ‘Accountability in the military is paramount. Yet what we have witnessed is the pre-emptive punishment of a few and a violation of due process. The chain of command ensures accountability at every level, meaning that responsibility for success and failure is shared.’ 

Just my own comment: in business and in sport, accountability is the fundamental quality. Going back to the ADF veteran: ‘Therefore, generals who commanded during these periods, these men, are set to lose their honours and awards. From the commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force, officers who for the most part did not see action but wear medals suggesting they did should face the same pre-emptive punishment. Stripping medals from senior officers reinforces command responsibility and ensures leadership is held accountable for their decisions in command. It upholds fairness and integrity, demonstrating that no-one is above accountability.’ He goes on: ‘Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) establishes the principle of command responsibility, holding military commanders criminally liable for crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew, or should have known, and failed to prevent or punish them. The statute places a clear duty on commanders to control their forces, and failure to do so makes them legally responsible for their subordinates’ actions. In light of this, if soldiers are to be held accountable for alleged war crimes, the same standard must apply to the commanders in charge at the time—from the Commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force. Command responsibility dictates that leadership cannot be insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Yet, after 10 years, the fact remains: no-one has been convicted of war crimes. 

‘This tone-deaf statement and its timing send a clear message from the top of the Defence Force and government. It shows they’ve learned nothing from the declining recruitment and retention rates, the public’s outrage over ADF’s bloated staff ranks and their untouchable status, or the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide. Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.’ 

That’s the end of the quote from that distinguished ADF veteran. He still feels intense loyalty to the defence forces, despite what’s happened. His finished there with: ‘Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.’ Why should he care—he is out? I’ll tell you why he cares. It is because he cares about this country, as well as about the ADF, the veterans and those still serving. That’s why this is so important. 

This affects culture, which is our ADF’s secret weapon. It is its most powerful strategic weapon. I’m not going to talk at length about that; I’ve talked about it before. Think about the culture in the Defence Force now. We’ve learned, apparently, that the royal commission didn’t expect Defence to stonewall vital information and keep it from the royal commission. Why? Surely, it’s better to be open and lance the boil? No, they stonewalled. 

But, then again, we’ve now learned that three months ago a coordination officer from Defence was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross for outstanding outcomes in working with the royal commission. That begs the question: in Defence’s eyes, what are ‘outstanding outcomes’? Here are some questions I asked in question time of Senator Wong—for whom I have a lot of regard—representing the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles. I began by saying: 

Minister, on the recommendation of the then Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, the government will strip distinguished service medals from soldiers for allegations of war crimes that have not been proven in a criminal court, yet the government will not strip the Distinguished Service Cross medal off General Campbell. 

Then I asked her: 

Minister, why do soldiers under General Campbell ‘s command lose medals while he keeps his medal for commanding them? 

I didn’t get a satisfactory response. Then, as a second question, I began with: 

Minister, the Brereton report specifically excluded any findings on command accountability. 

The minister disagreed with me on that, to be fair. I continued with: 

The implementation oversight panel, though, provided independent advice to government that the Brereton report, in doing this, was inappropriate and that senior command accountability must be examined. 

That was the implementation oversight report. So I asked the minister: 

Why are Defence’s most senior leaders being let off scot-free on allegations in the Brereton report and why is your government ignoring the oversight panel’s advice? 

I didn’t get a satisfactory answer. My final question began: 

Minister, the criterion for the Distinguished Service Cross at the time General Campbell was nominated required him to be ‘in action’, meaning in direct contact with an enemy— 

Facing the enemy, being fired upon by the enemy, having actual engagement— 

yet there are no records of General Campbell being in action. 

I asked her: 

Why does your government refuse to have the honours and awards appeals tribunal examine his award? 

Why indeed! I’ve asked that question before in Senate estimates and got nowhere. We will continue. 

We see that Labor is now moving an amendment to Senator Lambie’s motion. My brief reading of it is that the government is watering down Senator Lambie’s fine motion, which calls on the government to ‘urgently publish’ a comprehensive timeline. The government now wants to water that down with an amendment that calls on the government to ‘urgently work towards’ this. There is no commitment. So I want to thank Senator Lambie for this motion. I want to thank her for her work and for speaking strongly for veterans and enlisted people. I want to thank Senator Shoebridge, who has left the chamber, but nonetheless I thank him for his work as well. 

I’ll finish by saying that our most powerful strategic weapon is the Australian Defence Force culture. That includes mateship and accountability—very, very strong. I’ve heard about it from many sailors, airmen and soldiers. They respect it and they understand the power of it. I’ve heard it from officers. I’ve heard it from veterans. I’ve heard it from enlisted ranks. We’ve been watching it unravel for years, listening to soldiers, airmen, sailors, officers, enlisted men and women and veterans. It’s unravelling, yet it’s the key to our defence forces. This is a prize that must be guarded with reverence, yet at Senate estimates I’m disappointed to see that the senior brass don’t seem to understand it. 

Implementation of the recommendations of this royal commission must be sincere, meaningful and informed to restore accountability and to restore culture in the Australian defence forces. We will be watching, as I’m sure Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and others will be. This is the house of review. As representatives of the people we serve, we will be watching and holding the government accountable. We also serve veterans and current forces because they have served us and our country with distinction. We serve all the people of Australia, and that’s why we will be watching to see their implementation of this royal commission. 

/0 Comments/by

Backing Our Diggers Means Holding the Brass Accountable

,

A report revealed from a motion I put into the Senate, that the government kept a helicopter flying for more than 5 years with a defective engine part.

That MRH-90 helicopter that crashed in Jervis Bay without any fatalities was a stroke of luck. Four months later, another helicopter crashed in the Whitsundays, resulting in the death of four Defence personnel. This report reveals that senior “leadership” of Defence was willing to put people’s lives at risk with defective engine parts. The question must be asked – how many other risks were they willing to overlook or explain away?

One Nation backs our Defence Personnel.  The Government can’t claim they do unless they hold senior members of the Defence Department accountable for their failures.

Transcript

I rise to speak on the document produced in response to order for the production of documents No. 200. This order relates to the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash in Jervis Bay in May 2023. The helicopter call sign Bushman 82 was hovering low to water on a training exercise, with divers suspended below, when it experienced a catastrophic failure of its left-hand engine. The helicopter ditched into the water—in a stroke of luck, without any fatalities. Just one month later, Defence gave the MRH-90 helicopter a completely clean bill of health and authorised it to continue flying. The Senate agreed to this OPD in May 2023, requiring Defence to hand over any safety reports and documents in relation to the crash. We wanted to know how Defence had certified the helicopter as safe so quickly after such a significant incident. In defiance of the order of this Senate, the Minister for Defence refused to hand over any documents, citing an ongoing internal investigation, despite the helicopter already being back in the air, threatening lives. The government and Defence advised that that investigation should conclude in October 2023. 

In June 2023, a month after, the Senate reiterated its order for the documents in motion 243, with a new deadline of November in accordance with the advice of the government. We gave them a go. They failed to produce even a response to that order until the Senate sought an explanation in December of 2023. We can see how time marches on and is irrelevant to Defence. 

Now we fast forward to September 2024, 18 months after the crash and nearly a year after the government promised to respond. We finally have a response and documents, yet it is not a compliant response. It’s a redacted version of an executive summary to a single report. The order very clearly specified ‘all incident reports, safety evaluations, briefing notes, correspondence and information held by the Department of Defence, the defence minister or the defence minister’s office’. The executive summary to one report clearly doesn’t satisfy this request. 

Minister, where are your briefing notes? Where is your correspondence? Are you telling the Senate that you and your office had nothing to say about the Jervis Bay ditching? The executive summary is dated 2 August 2024. That’s three months and two weeks ago. Did Defence sit on this report before giving it to the minister? Why the delay? The six pages of redacted executive summary we do have are from the Defence Flight Safety Bureau’s aviation safety investigation report. From what we do have, a few things are clear: 

The engine failure was caused by the rupture of Blade 34 from the High Pressure 1 (HP1) wheel in the High Pressure Turbine (HPT). 

They know the cause. Another quote reads: 

… in 2017, as a result of several HP1 failures across the global fleet, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) issued a NH90 Service Bulletin recommending that operators … replace HP 1 blades with modified blades. 

Another quote reads: 

The investigation highlighted that there was no definitive evidence of the completion and recording of hazard analysis and safety risk assessments related to HP 1 failures during MRH-90 PCS operations. 

Defence decided to keep flying the helicopters without the modified parts and eventually get around to it while failing to consider and document the risk that these things would lose an engine during low-level flight because of this. In 2023, five years after the bulletin was given to Defence, Bushman 82 was still flying in Jervis Bay, without the recommended modified parts. 

This report, while not compliant with the Senate’s order, is important because it again demonstrates Defence was willing to overlook serious risks when it came to this helicopter—risks involving lives. How many other problems with the MRH-90 helicopter did Defence overlook? How many times did they allow this thing back in the air, knowing it would unnecessarily put our defence personnel at needless risk? How many potentially catastrophic issues, like the TopOwl headset, were supposedly mitigated or did Defence just explain away? 

These documents are important because this helicopter should have been pulled from service a decade ago. The MRH-90 should have been permanently grounded after Bushman 82 ditched into Jervis Bay—the latest, at the time, of a series of incidents. It wasn’t pulled from service, and, four months later, Bushman 83 crashed in the Whitsundays, resulting in the death of four personnel: Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Phillip Laycock—Phil, as he was known; troop commander Captain Danniel Lyon; Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent; and Corporal Alexander Naggs. May they rest in peace. Blood is on the hands of the Defence leadership and successive defence ministers who kept this helicopter in the air when it belonged on the ground. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 

Leave granted; debate adjourned. 

News Article from The Australian

/1 Comment/by

Reviving Australian Industry Will Strengthen National Defence

,

We once produced things in this country — now, we’re buying them all from our greatest potential enemy. Without the capability to produce goods here in Australia through our own industry, we won’t have a military to defend our country.

I’ve long called for the Iron Boomerang project, which aims to use Australian resources here instead of shipping them to China and then buying their products back off them. Most importantly, to effectively defend our country, we must embrace Australia’s potential. Think about what we could achieve!

Transcript

I agree with Senator Van: Australia’s defence preparedness is poor, at best. It is true that the best way to keep Australia strong is to keep our transport and industrial base strong. Instead, successive Liberal and Labor governments have presided over the destruction of our manufacturing base and allowed our ports and the transport into those ports to atrophy.

One Nation proposes a comprehensive solution to this: starting with a railway from the Bowen Basin in the east of our country across to the Pilbara in the north-west, connecting to the existing network at the Port of Gladstone in Queensland and Pindar in Western Australia. This will create a national rail network to allow Australian Defence Forces to access and defend parts of our country we have never been able to access to stage a significant military operation. The railway, called Iron Boomerang, will enable an Australian steel industry to develop at Abbot Point near Townsville, returning to domestic production the most important elements of a defence industry—steel, aluminium, concrete and ceramics. It will allow an upgrade of the capacity of Townsville’s military docks to offer bespoke repairs for domestic and military vessels, including our AUKUS allies. Having a strong steel industry will open the possibility of Australian armour, transport and military rolling stock as well as a domestic strategic fleet, offering economic benefit to Townsville, Newcastle, Williamtown and Port Adelaide.

What would also help is to not forget that our greatest strength is our love of this beautiful country. That will make us strong. One Nation will not apologise for loving Australia, loving our flag, loving our language, loving our history and loving our culture. We are proud of our nation of Australia. We will proudly grow our manufacturing base to create wealth and security for all Australians.

/3 Comments/by