Posts

Retiring Defence Chief Campbell Leaves Military in a Mess

,

General Angus Campbell will retire as Chief of the Defence Force in just a month, leaving behind a mess of morale and military disasters. 

Under his watch our special forces have been decimated, morale has been destroyed, the navy is facing the worst outlook in 50 years, the entire force is in a recruiting crisis and he refuses to accept responsibility for what happened, all while wearing medals for “distinguished command and leadership” and earning $1 million a year. 

On behalf of the many soldiers, sailors and aviators that have contacted me over many years, farewell General Campbell – you do not go with our thanks and you will not be missed.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again, General Campbell. Looking at the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel report, Defence tried to keep this report secret, blocking freedom of information requests. It was only when the Senate, on my motion, ordered it to be produced that we’ve seen it. In my opinion, General Campbell, we can see why you wanted to keep this a secret, given what it said about your response to the Brereton inquiry. I’m going to read quite extensive quotes from it. It’s important to have this information on the record, given your previous denial of command responsibility. Quote:  

Looking through an organisational lens, the assessment of accountability and responsibility starts at the top. More senior officers have to take some level of responsibility for what goes wrong in their organisation or at least for any circumstances or policies that permitted or facilitated it. If no-one at an appropriate level of authority knew anything about this misconduct, that is an organisational failure in itself.  

Next quote:  

The Panel considers that the failure to look closely at the collective accountability and responsibility of Defence’s most senior leaders continues to generate resentment and anger amongst veterans, soldiers and their families which is likely to last for a long time.  

I can vouch for that. We’ve had many servicemen, current and former, contact us. Next quote: 

… it is a misuse of their [Special Forces’] capability to employ them on a long term basis to conduct what are essentially conventional military operations.  

Next quote:  

The history and legacy of former Special Forces members is unjustifiably tarnished.  

That’s by the Brereton report. General Campbell, you have refused to accept command responsibility or accountability for allegations, despite wearing a medal for your command. You are a senior officer, at one point commander of all forces in the Middle East. Will you ever take responsibility for your organisational responsibility, instead of just throwing loyal soldiers under the bus?  

Gen. Campbell: Thank you, Senator. Let’s start at the beginning of your comments. You’re incorrect to suggest that in some way I or Defence attempted to withhold the oversight panel’s final report to the minister. The oversight panel had, throughout its duties, access to an unredacted view of the Brereton report. That meant that its work needed to be referred to the Office of the Special Investigator to ensure that, in their work, there were no concerns by that office that anything in their report might in any way impinge upon their investigations and considerations for the potential for further legal action. Once that was done, the report was able to be provided to the minister with confidence that the Office of the Special Investigator had no concerns for its public release, and the report was publicly released. So I guess that’s conspiracy No. 1 out of the way. With regard to command accountability—  

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, General—  

CHAIR: Senator, let the witness finish their answer first, and then you’ll have an opportunity to ask a followup question.  

Gen. Campbell: With regard to command accountability, as has previously been given in testimony here by me and a number of my colleagues, the consideration of command accountability has been developed and completed at the level of Defence and my responsibilities and has been passed to the minister for his consideration. That remains under consideration by the minister and, in due course, the minister will advise of decisions in that regard. The oversight panel’s report was very much appreciated and well received by Defence. It has reflected on the experience and provides some very useful insights into the events that occurred, the manner of its response and the efforts we have gone to in reform and in delivery of now 139 of the 143 recommendations of the Brereton inquiry. Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, given what General Campbell said, why did the government withhold that document, withhold senators access to that document, the oversight report?  

Senator McAllister: As has already been indicated to you, it was necessary to seek advice from the Office of the Special Investigator as to whether or not the release of that report would in any way compromise their work. When that advice was received, the material was provided to the Senate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. General, you’re still wearing bars on your chest and the Distinguished Service Cross that you claim for either being in action, which you never were, or for your command of troops in the Middle East. You’ve previously tried to strip 3,000 soldiers of their citation. You’re still trying to strip other soldiers of their medals. Why do you get to keep Afghanistan medals while you try to have them stripped from soldiers?  

Gen. Campbell: I make no claims with regard to the Distinguished Service Cross, which was awarded to me for service in Afghanistan and the Middle East more generally.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I just want to close the chapter on your responses to my questions in the past about the search and rescue operation of the MRH90 Taipan crash in the Whitsundays. You’ll recall I first asked about this in October. We had an exchange in February about whether the answers were satisfactory. Missing from the information you gave me was that, after the crash, around 11 pm, HMAS Adelaide continued to sail in the opposite direction towards a photoshoot 140 nautical miles away. When I produced a photo that the Defence Force deleted from the website, General Campbell and Vice Admiral Hammond tried to tell me that HMAS Adelaide would be unable to help due to its size and too many vessels already at the search and rescue. You eventually later clarified that it actually was tasked to do the search and rescue. Why did you delete the images of the photoshoot from your website? Why have we gone through this back and forth for eight months now? Was it just too embarrassing for you to admit that you let a useful boat with helicopters on board sail away to a photoshoot instead of immediately helping with the search and rescue mission when it was assumed those men were still alive?  

Gen. Campbell: Thanks, Senator. I’ll have to take the bulk of your question on notice. With regard to the photoshoot, I neither directed nor have knowledge of the claim you’re making that photographs were deleted from the Defence website. I will need to take that on notice to understand whether or not and under what circumstances any photographs were or may have been removed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. I’m happy to have that taken on notice. What about the circumstances around the deployment of Adelaide.  

Gen. Campbell: Yes; I’ll take that on notice, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. On to your combined special forces selection process, reports from the ground indicate, from 270 candidates, only 13 per cent, or 37, were selected for all special forces groups. Is it time to admit this ridiculous idea of yours, that the troops don’t like, for combined selection has been a massive failure at the expense of millions of dollars with worse outcomes?  

Gen. Campbell: Thank you again, Senator. I’d like to correct the record. You speak of it as my ‘ridiculous idea’. It is a well thought out approach being developed by the Army. I don’t lay claim to it, Senator. In terms of the outcomes of it, I would refer to the Chief of Army.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Senator, could I just confirm what your specific question is.  

Senator ROBERTS: On your combined special forces selection process, reports from the ground indicate, from 270 candidates, only 13 per cent, or 37, were selected for all special forces groups and you’re having trouble recruiting for the special forces groups—you’re having trouble recruiting for the Army in general. Is it time to admit that this is a failure? The troops are telling us it is.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: That may be someone’s characterisation; that’s not our experience. It’s true that there are high attrition rates in any special forces selection. That’s a characteristic. What we’re much better at doing now is understanding the reasons for that. The preliminary assessment that I received just last week on one of the key contributing factors was the physical preparation. We need to lean in and help our people to follow the physical preparation to give them the best chance of completing successfully or not being withdrawn at our own request because they can’t meet a particular physical standard. Of course, there is a whole range of other aspects for assessment as well. So, yes, you’re correct in terms of the low numbers that were selected. That was characteristic when there were separate selection courses. This was the first of the common selection courses. We’re going through an after action review process now to understand what worked, what didn’t work and how we need to adapt it in the future. If I can just add a final point: the reason why we’re doing this goes to some of the points that were in the independent oversight panel’s report to the Deputy Prime Minister that you referred to in your earlier questioning. It’s to address some of the outcomes that we’ve been working on for the last 10 years in terms of the findings from the Brereton inquiry, and, in particular, role clarity among units and also making sure that we have good working relationships between the units in the command.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Chair is giving me the wind-up. You’re not lowering standards? You’re just giving soldiers an opportunity to meet the standards?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: No; they’re quite high standards, as you’d appreciate.  

Senator ROBERTS: But your response is not to drop standards; your response is to help soldiers meet the high standards.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes. That is the approach right across the board, not just for special forces selection. So for anybody who puts their hand up for special forces selection—whether that’s as an operator, an integrator or an enabler—they have a thing called a special forces entry test which tests a whole range of things, including some physical standards. To set those people up for success, we’ve provided them with a physical training preparation program that is specifically designed to ensure that they can have the best chance of meeting the standards that are required in that Special Forces Entry Test.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what we’ve seen recently under General Campbell’s command is that the SAS regiment has been decimated, with huge numbers of discharges after it was thrown under the bus. The combined special forces selection has been an abysmal failure, according to troops we’ve listened to. The MRH90 helicopter was kept flying until four men were killed in a crash. General Campbell is wearing a Distinguished Service Cross, which is probably illegal from what we’ve highlighted in previous estimates. The OSI has spent $100 million to lay a single war crimes charge, and there were no convictions. The force is in a recruitment crisis, going backwards. We’re 5,000 personnel under strength. The Navy will have the least capable surface leaders it’s had in more than 50 years for the next 10 years. What will you do to restore defence capability?  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, there are so many misinformed statements in that question that it’s hard to know where to begin. Perhaps I can say that there is very little of your characterisation of the current state of things that I accept. But I will tell you what it is that we are doing. This institution was subjected to a circumstance where there were many, many defence ministers on and off during the last government. There was chaos and dysfunction, and we are working to resolve that. We are taking defence seriously, unlike the coalition. We will see spending in defence reach 2.3 per cent of GDP over the next decade beyond the trajectory that we inherited. We’re investing $330 billion through the new Integrated Investment Program. We are developing a comprehensive workforce strategy to improve recruitment and retention. We have put in place the pathway to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. We are buying the guided weapons that we need to hold adversaries at risk. We are investing in the surface fleet. We have handed down the 2024 National Defence Strategy. I understand that, in the period I have represent the government in here, you have consistently come here and levied attacks on senior personnel. I am surprised that that is the approach that you have adopted—to personally attack officials. We are happy to discuss the policy settings and will always answer questions in relation to that. My preference would be that we stick to the policy settings and perhaps refrain, just a little, from the very personal attacks that are too frequently offered towards staff and officials.  

Senator ROBERTS: We have a crisis in the Army—  

CHAIR: I need to move on. 

/12 Comments/by

Conflicts of Interest in War Crime Handling

,

Defence senior leadership has failed to hold any senior officers accountable, instead choosing to throw soldiers under the bus.

Once again, we have secrecy and a lack of accountability from Defence and from this Labor government. Freedom of Information responses have revealed as much and we will continue to dig further.

Listen to my remarks here, which reveal the conflicts of interest within the paper trail. We reminded the Minister that a Senate Order is not something to be complied with or not complied with at your leisure.

We will continue to pursue this report.

Transcript

I speak in response to order for the production of documents No. 474. This document deals with a panel supervising Defence’s conduct in responding to the Brereton report. In a chain of freedom of information requests, every quarterly report of the panel was released, yet the final report was refused in its entirety. Before the final report was rejected, the last quarterly report was released in Defence Freedom of Information 500/23/24. In section 10 of that quarterly report, on page 6 of the release, the oversight panel foreshadows that their final report would be prepared and provided to Defence in September 2023. The panel met with Defence on ‘factual accuracy, clarity, sensitivity and classification’ of the report. Defence confirmed there was no information within the report requiring a security classification. The panel then stated: 

It will therefore be open to you— 

Defence Minister Marles— 

… to table that report in the Parliament … 

While the panel does not specifically mention prejudice in that report, it would appear strange if they had cleared the final report with Defence only for some highly prejudicial information that justifies defying an order of the Senate to make it past the goalkeeper. 

The final report was then provided to Deputy Prime Minister or Defence Minister Marles on or around 8 November 2023. On 19 February 2024, the Defence department refused freedom of information request 577/23/24 for this final report that the Senate has now ordered the government to table. Under the Freedom of Information Act, an exemption to disclose on the basis of prejudice must be made under section 37. There was no mention of section 37 or prejudice in the freedom of information refusal. The only ground mentioned was section 47C(1), deliberative process. The minister, in response to the Senate order, said there’s prejudicial information in this document, yet the freedom of information decision does not mention any prejudicial information. 

Before we even get to arguing about the merits of the freedom of information refusal, I will point out that there was an unacceptable conflict of interest for the person making that decision. The refusal was signed by Catherine Wallis. Wallis is the director-general of the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force. The Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel is meant to be reviewing whether the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force is properly doing their job. The taskforce is internal to Defence, while the panel is meant to be an independent external supervisor. We have the panel creating the final report on whether the taskforce has failed to do its job and then the director-general of the taskforce making the decision to keep this report card a secret. Even worse, in refusing the request, the director-general did not include that position as part of her signature. Wallis had included her full title—Director-General, Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force—just days earlier in a separate FOI decision. In refusing the FOI on this panel report, that title in her signature line had magically disappeared. 

The avenue to make a complaint about this conflict of interest is messy. The NAAC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, is headed by Paul Brereton. Major-General Paul Brereton, as he was at the time, wrote the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan inquiry report that started this whole episode, of which the oversight panel has been critical. The Deputy Prime Minister and part-time defence minister attended the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and was asked about this final report. When the commission asked Minister Miles if the report we’re talking about here would be released before the royal commission was over, the minister answered that he was still thinking about it. There was no mention of prejudicial criminal proceedings, just deliberation. 

The minister has claimed he’s been advised there’s prejudicial information in this final report. The panel says it’s been cleared with Defence. The FOI refusal makes no mention of prejudice. The minister did not mention prejudice to the royal commission. The question is: from where did this advice appear? It smells like a delaying tactic. To be frank, I don’t believe the claim of prejudice is genuine. Yet it may be, and for that reason we’ve lodged freedom of information requests with the Office of the Special Investigator and with the Department of Defence as to when they advised the minister that this report would be prejudicial. 

We would expect the minister to provide much more detail on this claim of prejudice before we would even think of accepting it. We remind the minister that a Senate order is not something to be complied with at his leisure. We will pursue this report, which outlines how Defence senior leadership has failed to hold any senior officers accountable while throwing soldiers under the bus. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 

Leave granted; debate adjourned. 

/2 Comments/by

Defence Secrecy Over Fatal Taipan Helicopter Crash

Why is the ADF so secretive and unwilling to answer straightforward questions? The refusal to provide information is endemic in Defence, and there is no justification for it.

The answer to why three ADF vessels were involved in a photo shoot instead of participating in the search and potential rescue of victims of the downed Taipan helicopter could have easily been provided when I first asked. It could have been given when the question was put on notice. Instead, it was treated as though cloaked in secrecy, despite the fact that the answer was not classified information.

Since these questions, we have discovered that Defence deleted all images of the photo shoot from their website. If it was a simple answer, why the cover-up?

We also know that General Campbell’s assertion that these ships couldn’t operate in the area is nonsense, given that the HMAS Adelaide, according to Defence -“has been designed with the shallowest possible draft to allow her to… manoeuvre tactically in the shallow waters common in the littoral regions”.

The Minister and the ADF need to realise that we are all on the same side and stop trying to withhold information from the Australian public, whom they are employed to serve.

It might be embarrassing, but the cover-up is always worse than the initial crime.

Despite General Campbell’s initial claim that this type of boat couldn’t navigate the waters around the Whitsundays, it turned out to be untrue. General Campbell later clarified that HMAS Adelaide was, in fact, tasked to the search and rescue operation after the photo was taken. Why is it so hard to get a straight answer out of Defence?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call. 

Senator ROBERTS: General Campbell, initially you said that you were unfamiliar with a question on notice; then one of your staff handed you the question on notice this morning. You then had lunch; presumably you chatted. I concluded that you were saying, ‘There’s not a single person in this building right now’—at the time—’in the waiting rooms that can answer whether there was a single vessel on the Exercise Talisman Sabre 2023 maritime photo shoot on 29 July, when the other vessels in the area were searching for the downed Taipan.’ I’ve already asked this four months ago and, while I have a response, I still do not have an answer. You did not answer it on notice; now you want to take it on notice again. I wonder where the Chief of Navy was. Could he explain? Could he have been brought to the table? This is a question about Navy vessels. I’m wondering whether there was no-one in this room or in the waiting rooms who could have answered that question. I’d like to table these documents, Chair. 

CHAIR: I’ll have a look at them first. 

Senator ROBERTS: The United States Navy has taken a photo and it’s dated 29 July. It’s an obvious photo shoot of the Talisman Sabre fleet and, in it, they say that the American ships are sailing in formation with the Royal Australian Navy Canberra class landing helicopter dock ship HMAS Canberra as part of the Talisman Sabre photo shoot. I’ll wait until you get the photo. 

CHAIR: We’re just going to circulate it for information only because we need to be able to verify the photo. I know that there’s other information there, but we need to be able to verify it before we actually agree to table it. For the benefit of the witnesses, I’ll agree for it to be circulated as information only at this stage. As I said earlier, in my opening statement, it would be great if senators could send us an email with an electronic copy so that we can ensure that the secretariat can do what they do in a more efficient manner.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure that they’ll be watching. 

CHAIR: I’m sure they have other things on, too. Who were you directing your question to? 

Gen. Campbell: We have the photographs. What is your question? 

Senator ROBERTS: There are several questions. First of all, this shows an Australian vessel at the photo shoot on the 29th and it wasn’t searching for the wreckage or the bodies from the downed Taipan. Why is that the case? 

Gen. Campbell: I’ll let the Chief of Navy explain in more detail, but senators will see this photograph is out in open water, in an extended area. There are some ships in the Australian fleet and, indeed, in the US and international partner fleet, that are not suited to the work required in confined waters and with variable depths to deal with searching for a lost helicopter and crew. There’s a distinction here between what is suitable and hence applied to the search and what is not suitable and not considered for the search. I’ll turn to the Chief of Navy, as perhaps he would wish to speak further. 

Vice Adm. Hammond: The CDF has laid it out precisely. That large array of ships in the photograph is in open water, some distance from land. It is routine to mark the beginning or the end of a large naval exercise with a group photograph. You’ll see there are aircraft carriers in there of the United States Navy—multiple vessels. There are Australian ships that are not in that photograph, because they were engaged in the search and rescue effort in confined waters inside the Whitsunday Islands. I submit that, had all of those ships been in that search area, we would have had a problem; there just isn’t enough sea room. The focus was on conducting a surface search initially for survivors, as I understand it, and for signs of wreckage. There were civilian craft involved and there were aircraft, rotary wing and fixed-wing, and there was no shortage of assets for that search—that very tragic incident. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your explanation. I understand your explanation. I’ll read the two responses that we got to questions on notice. I was specifically asking about a schedule of ships and boats that were available. The answer was: During Exercise Talisman Sabre 23, two maritime photographic activities were held on 22 and 29 July 2023. These activities included vessels participating in the exercise from Australia, the United States, Japan and the Republic of Korea. Nowhere did it give the explanation that you’ve just given—nowhere. 

Vice Adm. Hammond: As the Chief of Navy, I’m not involved in the conduct of the Chief of Joint Operations. I suspect that request did not come to me. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying that it did. I’m saying that it came from Defence, and Defence were very guarded in what they said. They said, ‘We were sincere, and we are sincere, in pursuing this issue.’ I got another answer, to question No. 23, which stated: There were six Royal Australian Navy warships in the area of operations on the night of the incident. Defence does not comment on the operational tasking of its assets. When we’ve seen what we’ve seen with the Taipans and been horrified by the loss of life on those Taipans, and then we see the nice photo shoot that we were on, we have a duty to ask those questions. We didn’t get the damn answers. We were led astray. It was suppressed. What you have said makes sense to me. You’re not going to have a US aircraft carrier ploughing around in the Whitsundays looking for a helicopter; I get that. You had at least one boat out in open waters; I get it. Why couldn’t we have been told that? What is Defence repeatedly trying to hide? We have seen issue after issue which Defence seems sensitive about. 

Vice Adm. Hammond: I understand your frustration. I am not in a position to answer why there was not a more fulsome response. I stand by my testimony. The resources available that had the necessary capabilities were applied at speed—that is my understanding—the minute the accident was known, which was at night; the night of the accident. I don’t recall being asked for comment in response to your inquiries. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept your testimony, but we will be putting further questions on notice about this issue. Chair, I draw to the committee’s attention that there seem to be so many things that this chief of defence forces is either not open about or is hiding. 

Senator McAllister: Senator—and Chair, perhaps—is it necessary to make general ad hominem attacks on the officials before the committee? Officials are here to answer questions about the budget. Officials—I think you have observed this morning—are willing to speak, as they have done now, when asked questions about particular matters. I am not sure it assists anyone to make broad and general accusations which are not substantiated against individuals in the room. I am not sure that helps the Senate in its work.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are many issues that have not been talked about openly. Senator Shoebridge, Senator Lambie, other senators and I have raised serious issues, and we don’t seem to be getting the answers. Minister, you should have been at least doing a PII when you didn’t. I put the same question to you: there seems to be something that the defence department runs over the top of you— 

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I am happy to answer questions. If you have questions, please put them to us; to the officials and to me— 

Senator ROBERTS: I am happy to do so. It is not just my frustration; it is my deep sadness at the loss of life which seems to have been unnecessarily lost in those Taipans. 

CHAIR: I don’t think anyone would dispute that. We are all very sad about what has happened— 

Senator ROBERTS: It borders on anger, though, when it could have been avoided. 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I turn to the MRH-90 Taipan crash in the Whitsundays. We remember the aircrew of 6th Aviation Regiment: Capital Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock, and Corporal Alexander Naggs. Lest we forget. The MRH-90 helicopter crashed into waters around Lindeman Island late Friday night, 28 July 2023—around 10.30 pm, from reports. On 29 July, the search and rescue operation were still looking for missing aircrew and trying to locate the helicopter. At sometime on 29 July the Navy was off on a maritime photoshoot. General Campbell, were there any Australian vessels at the Talisman Sabre 24 maritime photographic exercise on 29 July, 2023; yes or no? 

Gen. Campbell: I haven’t come prepared for that question. I will see whether any of my colleagues can answer, otherwise I will have to take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: I want to be clear, General Campbell. Late on Friday night the helicopter crashed. On Saturday, the next day, it seems that you could have had maritime assets, tasked on a photoshoot, off and away. What vessels were tasked to the Talisman Sabre maritime photographic activities on 29 July, if any were, and why the hell weren’t they tasked to the search and rescue operation? That is what I would like to know. 

Gen. Campbell: We will take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: I asked you in October to give me a schedule of all vessels in the area of operations and exactly when each one was tasked to assist with the search-and-rescue operation. You said in question on notice No. 23: Defence does not comment on the operational tasking of its assets. You are not in the middle of a war. This tasking isn’t sensitive information; it is a peacetime search and rescue operation. Why won’t you answer that? 

Gen. Campbell: I will have to return to that question on notice to understand the background, for me to be able to your question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Were you embarrassed about the ship not being engaged in the search area, but off on a photoshoot? 

Gen. Campbell: That has never crossed my mind. I can get the answers for you, but I know that our people engaged in that exercise were very conscious of how to be of assistance in supporting that downed aircraft and, at that stage, the missing aircrew. 

Senator ROBERTS: In regard to the failure to provide the schedule of vessels, you don’t get to say, ‘I am not answering that question’ to the Senate. It is time you were reminded of that. You have refused to provide information to this committee, and you do not have any public interest immunity claim lodged. You are, therefore, in contempt of this committee. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you may want to withdraw that, unless there is some evidence you are trying to put forward. I suggest you rephrase that line of questioning. 

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, a witness is required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. Witnesses are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of their evidence or of producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure a witness against producing documents, that is also a contempt. 

CHAIR: I understand that, but it is a matter for the Senate to determine that. You can put forward the case. I ask if you could withdraw the assertion that the general is in contempt, because that would be a matter for the Senate to work out, if we were to go down that path. Please withdraw that aspect. 

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, the general has not provided a public interest immunity claim yet— 

CHAIR: It is not a debatable point. I am asking you to withdraw so we can move on, and you can continue your line of questioning. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay; I withdraw. 

CHAIR: Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you are well aware of the procedures around estimates. Witnesses cannot just refuse to answer questions or refuse to hand over information. They must ask you, the minister, to raise a public interest immunity claim. It is up to the Senate whether to accept that answer or insist otherwise. Why are you letting Defence run rampant and refuse to hand over information, without even the courtesy of a public interest immunity claim? 

Senator McAllister: I do not accept the assertion, or that characterisation of the behaviour of Defence. All senators are aware of the standing orders. That is true for the senators on this side of the table, and the senators sitting before us. The CDF has indicated that he is willing to review the answer that has been provided. He has taken your question on notice. Your question went to the grounds on which the information was not provided. He has indicated that he will examine that. You have asked him to do so, and he has taken it on notice. He will come back to you when he has the information.

Senator ROBERTS: I asked you to give me on notice a list of every report or briefing provided to Defence or created internally raising issues with the Taipan helicopter. Your answer was that this would take too many resources to collate together. That sums up the Taipan, doesn’t it? 

Senator McAllister: Again, that question essentially invites speculation on your rhetorical position. If there is a specific question of fact or policy that you wish to address to officials, you should do so. Asking them to speculate about a rhetorical characterisation of a project is not reasonable. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you aware that Defence had said it would take too many resources to collate a list of every report or briefing provided to Defence or created internally raising issues with the Taipan helicopter? 

Senator McAllister: Is there a particular question you are referring to? 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware? 

Senator McAllister: This committee asks many questions on notice, and many answers are provided. Is there a number, or a particular question on notice, for which an answer has been provided in these terms that you can point me to? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I just explained it. 

Senator McAllister: Do you have a number? It is difficult for me to respond if you cannot even tell me which question we are talking about. I am happy to look at it. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get back to you on that one. 

Gen. Campbell: I refer to the question on notice Senator Roberts was referring to, from 25 October, 2023 on page 52 of the Hansard proof. The answer was: ‘There were six Royal Australian Navy warships in the area of operation on the night of the incident. Defence doesn’t comment on the operational tasking of its assets.’ That is correct—we don’t. But I want to reinforce the assurance that every asset that could be of assistance from Australia or from any of our partner nations in that exercise was tasked to be of assistance. 

Senator ROBERTS: General, were any Australian Navy vessels tasked at the same time on a photoshoot? 

Gen. Campbell: That is what I will have to come back to you on. You are talking about the next day, the 29th perhaps. 

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, while the other vessels were engaged in search and rescue. 

Gen. Campbell: I will come back to you on that, Senator. 

CHAIR: We can revisit that, Senator Roberts. 

/by

Who Will Answer for Defence’s $20 Billion Frigate Blowout?

If you get audited by the Tax Office and you’re missing documents, you could go to jail. The Hunter Frigates program is a $45 billion purchase yet Defence didn’t keep records of key decisions. Will anybody be held accountable for this mess of a program?

It’s been revealed that the cost of nine Frigates has blown out to $65 billion and the government is still proceeding with building three fewer ships for the same price we were supposed to get nine for. Defence is also outsourcing its recruitment drive with a $1.3 billion contract, yet 7 months of recruitment has gone down. The Generals in Defence are leaving us in a huge mess.

Regarding the Arafura Offshore Patrol Boats, why would the Defence department buy a military ship that can land a helicopter on it, but not actually use this feature? It doesn’t make sense to pay $300 million per boat while cutting essential features to save minimal costs.

Would the two heads of Defence, each on $1 million a year, take responsibility for the abysmal Hunter Frigate program? The response appeared to be, “Not my fault”. At four times the Prime Minister’s wage, we deserve better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My first set of questions is about the Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels. Going to the design of those vessels, the Navy website listing the capabilities of SEA1180 does not include a mention of a helicopter. The Brunei version of our offshore patrol vessel has a deck than an 11-tonne helicopter can be landed on. Were any changes made throughout the SEA1180 which downgraded the strength of the helicopter deck? 

Rear Adm. Malcolm: Senator, the requirement for our offshore patrol vessel did not include a helicopter as part of the top-level user requirements. 

Senator ROBERTS: And what is the reason for that? 

Rear Adm. Malcolm: I might ask Chief of Navy if he’d like to speak to that. 

Vice Adm. Hammond: The Arafura was designed for constabulary roles to replace the Armadale-class patrol boats, which do not operate helicopter capability. It was a minimum viable capability off-the-shelf solution to provide that constabulary effect. 

Senator ROBERTS: So the Brunei version would have been upgraded to handle a helicopter? 

Vice Adm. Hammond: That’s reasonable speculation, but I’m not sure, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: You did not derate or reduce the strength of the deck; you just wanted the base model? 

Vice Adm. Hammond: I’d characterise it as the Navy did not specify helicopter capability as a requirement. 

Senator ROBERTS: Turning to the $45 billion Hunter-class ship acquisition, Mr Moriarty, Australian taxpayers have already hand over $4 billion, and we still don’t have a boat. At the joint committee inquiry you accepted that there had been design flaws in the process and that records needed to be formalised and recorded. How is it acceptable that, on a $45 billion project, proper records weren’t kept? How did this happen, where were the records and why weren’t they kept? 

Mr Moriarty: Senator, there has been a lot of work done on examining the history of the Hunter-class program, which goes back to 2014. Certainly the ANAO and subsequent internal departmental work identified that some key records were not retained. That is a flaw in our system, and the deputy secretary has been putting in place a number of initiatives to enhance overall compliance with Defence records management policy. There are of course a number of other initiatives which we’ve put in place. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Moriarty, during the joint committee inquiry you stated you were not aware that standard procedures were not being followed. How is it possible that you weren’t aware? 

Mr Moriarty: Senator, after I assumed the position of secretary of the Department of Defence the process was already in flight. I delegate authorities to subordinate committees to bring forward work to decision-making committees. The fact that some of what I would regard as appropriate procedures had not been followed was never brought to my attention. 

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it something you would make sure of, in a project worth $45 billion? You’re paid more than $1 million a year, as I understand it. General Campbell is paid more than $1 million a year. That’s each of you almost double what the Prime Minister is paid. Between the two of you it’s four times what the Prime Minister is paid. With that amount, surely the Australians that pay you expect you to know what happens in your department. Why don’t you know? 

Mr Moriarty: Senator, there has a great deal of work done to talk about the inadequacies of some aspects of the Hunter procurement, but I think it’s also reasonable, when you delegate authorities to subordinate committees or to capability managers to bring forward, that they will pursue government requirements and procedures and internal Defence procurement procedures. The Defence committee structures that lead ultimately to these investment committee and Defence committees are intended to ensure that I, as the accountable authority, can effectively govern. You have to assume that the authorities below you understand their obligation and will comply with our own procedures and the requirements of in particular the PGPA. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s delve a bit deeper then. You blame Defence for not following the proper process of developing advice, tender evaluation and source evaluation for the Hunter frigates, because of an accelerated time frame. Yet the government brought forward process to three years. Do you still maintain that reasoning? The government, as I understand it, accelerated the process. 

Mr Moriarty: It did indeed, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Did the time compression affect the department’s process and the government advice that resulted from it? 

Mr Moriarty: I think the ANAO report and subsequent work done within the department suggested that, yes, had there been more time available to do some of that work, then there would have been more validity. 

Senator ROBERTS: Did Defence ask for more time? 

Mr Moriarty: The government took a decision about the time line it wished to pursue. The government was aware and made aware by this department that pursuing an accelerated time line increased risk. 

Senator ROBERTS: In the inquiry, as I understand it, you said: 

I think we did not seek more time. The government’s time line was very clear, but, as I said, that does not absolve us of the requirement to have made a value-for-money judgement… 

Why? Isn’t it your responsibility to ask for more time if you know accelerating the time line is going to compromise the process? 

Mr Moriarty: I am required to comply with lawful and reasonable directions of the elected government of the day. When the elected government of the day tells me that it wishes to proceed in a certain period of time, I can alert them to risks and risk-mitigation strategies. Government was alerted to the risks of an accelerated time line. 

Senator ROBERTS: You alerted them? 

Mr Moriarty: The department, of which I’m the secretary, alerted the government to the risks of an accelerated time line. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’re also quoted as saying at the inquiry: 

I’d say the government was aware that bringing forward a program of this scale and complexity by three years obviously introduced additional areas of risk. 

I’m wondering if you’re being evasive. You say it’s the government’s fault for speeding up the time line, yet you never provided advice to the government such that it would make you essentially break your own rules around processes. Are you trying to have a bob each way to make sure you have a job later when Hunter falls over? 

Mr Moriarty: The government was dealing with a range of complex pressures. One of them was the need to build and have a continual shipbuilding program in South Australia. In order to do that it wished to hit some milestones in the project decision so that work could get underway. In order for work to get underway it needed to have the department contribute to advice to government by a certain period of time. The department was made very well aware of what the government’s time line was for when it wished to make a decision. 

CHAIR: Senator, I’m not disputing what you you’re saying is in the transcript, but maybe in the future it would be great to get the full context and a printout of that so that other senators and the witnesses can have a look at the context of what was said and asked at the time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you Chair; I will. 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Yannopoulos, you outlined a series of measures the department is taking to ensure procedures are followed & records are properly kept. Yet you said at the inquiry on 20 Novr 2023, page 8: 

  • I would be reluctant to give a guarantee that record keeping is fixed. What I can do is update the policy and update the learning. 

I would think it was your and your department’s responsibility to guarantee this does happen. While I take your point from your previous evidence that it’s not easy to guarantee perfect performance across 100,000 people involved in the process, it’s ultimately your job to ensure things run quick properly and such a bureaucratic mess does not happen again. Why won’t you guarantee that the next time the government enters a $45 billion contract, acquisition records will be properly kept, assessment for value for money be made and proper processes followed? 

Mr Yannopoulos: Senator, I’m happy to guarantee for the next $45 billion project that a government will consider we will ensure there is effective recordkeeping. Indeed we are, across all of our major projects. What I was asked at that inquiry was to guarantee there would be no further instances of record-keeping issues, and I just cannot do that. As much as I can update policy, train 23,000 people in a new e-learning and record-keeping practices, we are a large organisation with a lot of staff that join us each year, so it would be silly of me to guarantee we’ll see no recurrence. 

Senator ROBERTS: So who’s going to be held accountable for the mess of the Hunter frigate program? 

Senator Shoebridge: Nobody. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will the government scrap the Hunter frigate program, as One Nation has called for, and arm our Navy with ready-made mature solutions already in the water? Is the government committed to delivering all nine Hunter frigates under the current plans? Do you have no plan? That’ll do for now. 

Senator McAllister: Senator, we spoke this morning about the review of the surface fleet. I’m not sure if you were in the room. 

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t. 

Senator McAllister: The government’s response to that review is expected in the early part of 2024. I’m not in a position here to pre-empt any of the outcomes of that. More broadly, of course we expect all the procurement across Defence represents value for money for the Australian public. We are in a very challenging strategic environment, and that means we need to use the resources we have well. That is a project that is underway, and we’ve talked quite a lot today about the work that has been going on across the department and across the ADF to make sure that is the case. 

Senator ROBERTS: I have two questions on Adecco. Defence has entered into contract CN3923195 with Adecco Australia for consulting on personnel recruitment. This is a $1.3 billion contract. I can’t recall coming across a bigger contract during my time in parliament. Defence entered into the contract on 27 October 2022. What was Defence’s headcount on that date when the contract started? 

Lt Gen. Fox: That contract was signed on 22 October but did not take operative effect until 1 July this year. 

Senator ROBERTS: What was the headcount then? 

Lt Gen. Fox: In October? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Lt Gen. Fox: I’ll have to get that for you from an October headcount time frame. 

Senator ROBERTS: And also when the contract started, please. 

Lt Gen. Fox: As at end of financial year 2022-23 the average funded strength was 58,642. 

Senator ROBERTS: What does funded strength mean? 

Lt Gen. Fox: The department has the average taken over people coming in and out each pay for the average funded strength we have. It’s not a headcount; it is very close to it, but it’s the funded strength. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s now 2024. What’s the latest headcount for Defence personnel? 

Lt Gen. Fox: Can I answer that again in an AFS construct? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Lt Gen. Fox: The average funded strength is 58,427. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve gone down by 215. 

Lt Gen. Fox: Yes, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had Adecco in place now for seven months, and we’ve gone backwards. 

Lt Gen. Fox: Yes, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: And we’re going to pay them $1.3 billion? 

Lt Gen. Fox: That’s for the life of the contract, Senator, but the performance management framework will determine what they are paid in accordance with the performance of the contractor. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you describe the performance pay provisions? 

Lt Gen. Fox: I’ll defer to my colleague to provide an indication of the performance management framework. 

Major Gen. Stothart: There are a series of performance indicators, performance measures and health indicators for this contract. We are transitioning from a centralised model of recruiting to a decentralised model of recruiting in difficult circumstances, and the three major key performance indicators for this contract are the volume of target achievement, the velocity by which we can take an application and then issue a letter of offer to a candidate and, thirdly, the timeliness and quality of the deliverables we receive from Adecco to ensure we are seeing the business intelligence of their system. The contracts, noting there are some contract-in-confidence measures, are assessed quarterly. There are at-risk amounts tied to the achievements for them to acquire the targets linked to incentive payments, and the value of those payments are contractually in confidence. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to tell us a percentage? 

Major Gen. Stothart: No, I don’t think I can, and I don’t have that with me at the moment. I would need to take that to confirm what I could share. I can talk about the performance measures and the health indicators. But I don’t want to underestimate the scale of the difficulty of the transition from a model that, over a long period of time, was not delivering the volume or the velocity we needed in our recruiting and the difficult shift to a new model that we still have confidence will deliver, with some adjustments, what we need. It is a difficult process we’ve asked Adecco to go through. They’ve had to pick up a model that was not theirs, the previous contract arrangement which the Commonwealth Defence Force recruiting was running, and shift it through a transition period to get to their model that we selected as the preferred model of recruiting through that securement process. 

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, are you designing the process and they’re implementing it, or are they involved in the designing too? 

Major Gen. Stothart: I could defer to chief of personnel for a detailed answer on that question, Senator. 

Lt Gen. Fox: For the model that was selected the Commonwealth went out to tender for innovation in delivering volume, the speed of recruiting and the care of candidates. We had a number of tenderers come in, there was a competitive tender evaluation process and Adecco’s model, data and solution were evaluated to be the best in that period of time against the tenders Defence was requiring in volume, care and speed of recruiting. 

Senator ROBERTS: Major General, you mentioned there’s a need for a dramatically increased volume—or velocity, I think was your word. Why is that? Is that because retention is decreasing? 

Major Gen. Stothart: Senator, there are a various number of reasons. We need to achieve our targets more consistently than we’ve done previously, and the speed it takes us to conduct our recruitment processes needs to be much shorter. We know the target demographics of young and not-so-young Australians that may have some propensity to join the ADF have more choices around employment, study and travel now than they’ve had previously, and speed of offer to those candidates is key. 

Senator ROBERTS: What is the attrition in the armed forces at the moment? 

Lt Gen. Fox: At 1 January it was 10.1 per cent. CDF mentioned this morning in his opening statement that as at 1 February it’s 10 per cent. 

/by

Australian Defence Force – Less Money on Gender Advisers, More on Ammo!

After questioning members of Defence during Senate Estimates, I spoke in the Senate Chamber in support of Senator Lambie’s Motion that the ADF recruitment and retention crisis is a national security issue.

With more leaving than joining our defence force, putting our ability to defend Australia at risk, there is no denying the ADF is in crisis. As Senator Lambie rightly pointed out, this is a national security issue. We need a ready, able and capable military force. It’s not enough to sit back and hope that the United States will come to our aid. We must ensure we are self-reliant in this country for our own defence.

Given his track record so far, it’s clear that until the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, is removed from his post, we will not have the defence force we once had. We must recognise our diggers for who they are – the people who care about our country and who are putting their heart and soul into defending this country.

Spend less money on “gender advisers” and more on ammo for training and diggers might just want to stick around.

Transcript

As a servant to the many fine people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on, and strongly support, Senator Lambie’s motion that the ADF recruitment and retention crisis is a national security issue. Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and I spent a lot of time questioning Defence last week at Senate estimates. It was revealed at those h4earings that, despite all of Defence’s glossy recruitment brochures—as Senator Shoebridge accurately described them—there’s almost no mention of the fact that the headcount of defence personnel has gone backwards. There are more people leaving defence than joining, despite large recruitment and retention targets and huge expenditure. 

The responsibility for this utter failure sits squarely with Defence’s upper brass and with the politicians, for failing to keep them in line. The branch chiefs are all led—and I use that term loosely, when it comes to this man—by the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell. He is paid more than $1 million a year at a time when defence personnel receive a real wage cut. It’s difficult to find a KPI or a metric that General Campbell hasn’t failed on in his time as head of the Defence Force: recruitment and retention goals—failed; Taipan helicopters—failed; the Hunter class future frigates—failed. There are questions over whether a medal that General Campbell wears on his chest today—the Distinguished Service Cross—was given to him legally. 

Over 100 active special forces soldiers have discharged from the force after General Campbell threw them under the bus at a press conference in 2020, tarring them with accusations of war crimes before a single charge had been laid. One of the most elite fighting forces in the world—the Special Air Service Regiment, or SASR—is reportedly facing a complete capability crisis as operators leave Defence because their supposed leaders don’t care about their welfare. The chair of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, Nick Kaldas, has been scathing of Defence and its leadership. He specifically called out the successive failure of governments, the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to adequately protect the mental health and wellbeing of those who serve our country. 

Our defence force is in crisis on many fronts. The ability to defend this country is at risk, and it’s a national security issue, as Senator Lambie rightly points out. We cannot just close our eyes and cross our fingers and hope that the United States will turn up and help us out. We need a ready, able and capable defence force as much as ever. Given his track record so far, it’s clear we won’t get one until the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, is removed from his post and until we start treating the diggers as the people they really are: the people who care about our country and who are putting their heart and soul into defending his country. 

/4 Comments/by

Defence Could Have Avoided ABC Defamation of Veteran Heston Russell

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.

/by

What is the Meaning of Distinguished Service Medals?

The Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) continues to claim there are no issues with his Distinguished Service Cross despite evidence that says there is.

General Campbell never saw “action” on the two way rifle range with the enemy, as was required by letters patent for the medal at the time of his nomination.

Despite claiming he had no ‘operational command’ of soldiers who have been accused of war crimes in the Brereton report, the nomination for CDF Campbell’s medal specifically states he received it for his ‘operational command’ of forces in the middle east.

So when there’s medals to be handed out, the CDF is happy to enjoy the claim he had ‘operational command’, yet when its time to face accountability for allegations of wrong doing, he denies he had any command.

I’ve already called for General Campbell to step down. If he had any leadership at all he would, for the good of Australia’s Defence Force.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Getting on to matters of operational command: General Campbell, do you still maintain that, as commander of the Joint Task Force 633, you did not have operational command of forces in Afghanistan?

Gen. Campbell: That’s quite the reverse. I had, in my tenure, national command and operational command. They are technical terms of command, and that’s exactly what I had.

Senator ROBERTS: So you had command over the Afghanistan operation?

Gen. Campbell: I had national command and operational command of personnel in the Middle East.

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t that make you complicit in the Brereton report’s accusations? You were the senior officer overseeing the people who allegedly performed those acts.

Gen. Campbell: Can you ask that question again? I’m not sure quite what you’re asking.

Senator ROBERTS: The Brereton report was damning about some events in Afghanistan, as I understand it. Is that correct?

Gen. Campbell: Yes. In terms of credible information of allegations of unlawful conduct, that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: And you wanted the stripping of the DSC from members of the SAS involved?

Gen. Campbell: Let’s be a bit more precise. One of the recommendations of the Brereton inquiry was to consider command accountability in circumstances of multiple allegations and credible information of unlawful conduct, which I have a part in in terms of the process of undertaking that work and providing materials and advice to the Deputy Prime Minister, which I have done. That issue is now with the Deputy Prime Minister for his further consideration.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to your nomination for the Distinguished Service Cross that’s provided in Defence Freedom of Information 544/22/23 document 8. I’ll quote from your nomination:

Major General Angus John Campbell exercised operational command of a joint task force that, while mainly focused on Afghanistan …

Through his visits and continuous engagement, Major General Campbell’s exercise of operational command ensured that Australian national expectations were met, that Australian forces were supported and operated effectively …

Your exercise of operational command is referenced twice in the nomination for the bars you’re wearing on your chest right now, but you claimed earlier on when it came to the war crimes allegations that you did not have operational command. Is that correct or am I misunderstanding something? There seems to be a contradiction.

Gen. Campbell: If you’re talking about today or any other day I can remember, it is very, very clear the chief of joint operations of the day assigned me national command and operational command for the tenure of my
appointment as commander of Joint Task Force 633 from 14 January 2011 to 17 January 2012. So there’s never been a moment when I don’t suggest that I had national command and operational command.

Senator ROBERTS: Didn’t you want to strip the DSC from people in that operation?

Gen. Campbell: As I said, in delivering on the particular recommendation of the Brereton inquiry, I was required to consider across the period 2005 to 2016, which is the time frame of the inquiry, circumstances in
which command accountability might arise for multiple allegations and credible information of unlawful conduct. I have, as I say, done my part in that process and offered materials and advice to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Did the Brereton report say you were or were not part of the operation?

Gen. Campbell: The Brereton report acknowledged that I as much as anybody else who was deployed into the Middle East and had different forms of responsibility in their duties for service in Afghanistan as just that. So, again, I’m not quite sure what you mean.

Senator ROBERTS: We discussed this at last Senate estimates. Can you recall?

Gen. Campbell: I know that we have discussed this on a number of occasions.

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s only been twice. Does Defence have an accepted definition of ‘in action’ in relation to awards and honours?

Gen. Campbell: I’m unaware and would have to take it on notice to our honours and awards team.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know what Defence’s application is of the definition of ‘in action’ from the Gilbert case as well, which was in 2019.

Gen. Campbell: I’m not familiar with that case, but I’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your nomination for the Distinguished Service Cross was made on 29 September 2011. At that time the letters patent for that award required that you had to be in action. Can you
please provide to this committee on notice the exact action you were involved in that meets the definition of ‘in action’ from the Gilbert case?

Gen. Campbell: As I was not the nominator, decision authority or the controller of that honour, I’m not in a position to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Who is in a position to give me, on notice, the exact action that you were involved in that meets the definition of ‘in action’ from the Gilbert case?

Gen. Campbell: I will have to take that on notice, but it’s unclear to me at this point.

Senator ROBERTS: The bottom line is that, if you weren’t in action, your medal appears to be not legal. A leader would have handed back their Distinguished Service Cross already. I was just talking with the minister a minute ago about the importance of teamwork and consistency in the leadership, and that’s what I’m getting to here. A number of ADF people and veterans are deeply concerned about the inconsistency.

/1 Comment/by

MRH-90 Taipan Helicopter Crash

Four of our defence service personnel are dead after a MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crashed in the Whitsundays.

While investigations are still ongoing, the Department of Defence has known about multiple serious, catastrophic issues with the helicopter for over a decade. By some accounts, this helicopter should have been pulled from service years ago.

The question many are asking is whether the upper brass and generals of Defence have blood on their hands for allowing this helicopter to continue flying when such huge issues were known.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I understand. My second set of questions goes to the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter. General, the defence minister has decided to replace the Taipan helicopter platform with Black Hawks after the
Whitsundays crash. I want to express my condolences for the loss of those service members, especially to their families and their unit. Defence has known about these issues with the Taipan helicopter for more than a decade. The question many people are asking, and the question I’m asking, is whether this helicopter should have been pulled from service before the Whitsundays crash and four people are dead because Defence or politicians or both kept pushing it.

Gen. Campbell: Firstly, thank you for your expression of condolence and consideration of the families, the friends and the people we’ve lost. I very much appreciate it. As I noted in my opening remarks, in responding to your query, we have to be scrupulously careful not to, in any way, impinge on the independence and the objectivity of the four investigations that are underway: the investigations by the Queensland coroner, by
Comcare, by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and, most particularly, by the Defence Flight Safety Bureau. With that I’ll pass to the Chief of Army.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I think I can help in regard to your question about the withdrawal of the MRH-90. As you’d recall from our last conversation last estimates, it was always our intention to withdraw the MRH. It was due for withdrawal from the 5th Aviation Regiment on 5 August this year. The tragic accident in the Whitsundays occurred on the evening of 28 July, immediately after which there was a cessation of flying for the aircraft. As the CDF has outlined, there’s an active air safety investigation underway as we speak. The advice from the Defence Flight Safety Bureau is that that investigation is likely to take approximately 12 months, which takes us into the latter half of 2024.

We would have had to have signed an additional sustainment contract this year to continue the option to fly the aircraft, which we were going to withdraw from the 6th Aviation Regiment in quarter 4 of 2024. So the calculus, on a value-for-money basis, in the first instance, was that it was not worth spending the money when, in our assessment, there was no probability or a low probability that we would return to flying. And, if we were able to return to flying, it would be for a fraction of 2024. The other key consideration was with regard to whether we’d be able to further accelerate the introduction of the replacement, the UH-60 Black Hawk. Those two factors were the key factors in consideration for the decision to withdraw the MRH-90 this year, in late 2023, rather than in late 2024.

With regard to the other elements or questions that you framed, I’ll refer to the CDF’s comments about ensuring that we respect the process of the active air safety investigation. It’s very important that we don’t contribute to any sort of speculation so that that air safety investigation and, indeed, the other three inquiries and investigations can continue to do their work.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Before I continue with my questions, I must say that, though I’ve been very critical of this helicopter, nonetheless, I want to compliment Major General Jobson and Major General King for the generous time they’ve spent—twice, now—providing me with information on this. Their hands are tied for similar reasons to what you’ve just given. That’s not something they had to do, but they did it, and it’s appreciated. They did it very well. But it still goes back to the core issue for me: do politicians and Defence senior personnel have blood on their hands for ignoring the issues that have been rife throughout the Taipan’s operational history in Australia? On notice, could you please provide me with a list including the dates and titles of every report or briefing provided to Defence or created internally raising issues with the Taipan platform.

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In relation to the Whitsundays crash, were there any delays to vessels that were capable of participating in the search and rescue operation being tasked to do so?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Sorry—I want to understand exactly what information you were seeking there.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know if there were any delays to vessels in the area of the Whitsundays crash that would have been capable of participating in the search and rescue operation. Were there any delays in their ability to do so?

Gen. Campbell: That line of questioning will cut across the Queensland coronial inquiry. So I don’t think we’re in a position to respond to it.

Senator ROBERTS: I can see how it may be part of the coronial inquiry, but I can’t see how it would impact the result of the coronial inquiry, because it’s just fact.

Gen. Campbell: It may be or not, but this is too precarious a place for any of us to be in. So, while these inquiries are underway, we will say as little as possible—preferably nothing at all.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s understood that one of the exercises at Talisman Sabre involved a photoshoot with partner vessels. Is that accurate, and when was this held?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Sorry, I’m not following. What vessel you are referring to?

Senator ROBERTS: We understand that one of the exercises at Talisman Sabre involved a photoshoot with partner vessels. I don’t know whether that’s American or Australian. Is that accurate, and when was this held?

Gen. Campbell: We’ll take it on notice and reply.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The next question—that was the coroner’s inquiry—is: on notice, could you please provide a schedule of all Defence vessels that were in the Talisman Sabre area of operations on 28 July and exactly when each one was tasked to assist with the search and rescue operation?

Gen. Campbell: We’ll take that on notice

Questions on Notice Answers

A0234_ForeignAffairsDefenceandTrade_2023-24SupplementaryBudgetestimates_Defence

A0235_ForeignAffairsDefenceandTrade_2023-24SupplementaryBudgetestimates_Defence

A0233_ForeignAffairsDefenceandTrade_2023-24SupplementaryBudgetestimates_Defence

/by

Distinguished Service Medals Might Be Illegal

At Senate Estimates I have been pursuing the Chief of the Defence Force over allegations he was illegally awarded a Distinguished Service Cross.

This represents the hard work and tiring investigations of veterans and others over many years. They deserve justice and CDF Angus Campbell must hand back his DSC and resign.

Read the full story here:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-20/distinguished-service-medals-army-might-be-illegal/102999116

/by

The ADF protects and defends Australia. Australia needs to do more for our veterans

Available on these platforms:

A decision to join the Australian Defence Force, be it army, navy or airforce, is a life-defining decision. The change that every recruit who becomes a soldier goes through, is forever. Military training and active service is an experience that re-shapes a person’s life. Our ADF personnel must be highly skilled, self-reliant, brave and courageous, and many become wired for conflict. The physical, emotional and mental demands on individuals in deployment are impossible to imagine for those of us who haven’t served. 

When our defence personnel finish serving our country the transition back into civilian living is challenging for many. For some it is too challenging. 

An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report found that 432 serving or ex-serving members suicided from 2001 to 2017. In 2018, 33 suicided. 

Ex-serviceman are 3.1 times more likely to suicide if discharged for medical reasons than if discharged voluntarily. 

And there are in excess of 5,000 ex-servicemen and women who are homeless over a 12 month period. 

Successive governments have more than enough data that shows too many of our defence personnel are not getting the support needed to cope with defence force work, or cope after that work is finished. 

A senate inquiry found that one in four returned solders had experienced a mental disorder and the rate of suicidal thoughts, plans and attempts, was double that of the general population. 

It has taken so long, needlessly and excruciatingly long for the Australian Government to recognise the unique nature of military service and to establish a Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It’s disappointing that the Government’s own agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs, has shown disregard, disrespect and callousness towards our veterans and that it has taken until this year for parliament to force a Royal Commission. The stories are numerous and share a common theme of delay, deny and destroy. 

Jesse Bird was a private with Townsville’s Infantry Battalion who served an eight-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2009-10. 

He had been pursuing a claim for permanent impairment for almost two years and just weeks after losing the claim and pleading for help, Jessie committed suicide. After his death DVA approved his claim. 

As a nation Australian must do better to recognise the service, sacrifice and immense challenge our servicemen and women and their families face, especially when it comes to returning to regular lives. 

The Australian Government provides nearly $12 billion in federal funding to support 325,000 veterans and their families each year, yet too many remain unsupported. For some veterans, only other veterans understand well enough to help heal and re-integrate. 

Highly skilled and motivated defence personnel upon retirement from the ADF must have access to meaningful work. Veterans cannot be courageously defending your nation this week and then be left with a void the next. As I’ve already said military training and active service is experience that re-shapes people’s life. 

We need more organisations like Bootstraps, which are veterans for veterans, receiving funding in our communities. Only veterans know what veterans have been through. Our courageous servicemen and women need to know that Australians understand the vulnerabilities and frailties that can come from active service. Our veterans need better care, and a sense of honour and urgency from support agencies. 

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide needs to deliver for the men and women who have fought for our country. Veterans and all ex-service men and women need better mental health and transitional support and our country needs improved ways for veterans who are not actively seeking support to identify and get such needed support. Defence Force personnel and their families deserve that. 

Our guests today:

SAM KAVANAGH served in the Army for 20 years and spent time in Combat Engineers, Signals and Corps of Intelligence. His father served for over 30 years in the RAAF. Sam set up Bootstraps, a group for veterans. Sam and Bootstraps are dedicated to Australians who have laced up a boot in service of our country. 

DR SHARITH SIPPEL was trained as an Electronic Warfare Linguist which is communications and intelligence and served for 5 years. Sharry left the Navy 20 years ago and retrained as a chiropractor. 

/by