Posts

A Real Solution for Veterans or Just More Empty Promises?

,

The treatment of our veterans has been a national shame for too long.

The government is trying to do something different – trying to simplify and harmonise the many and overlapping rules that govern what veterans are entitled to.

Will their plan or this bill work and achieve that? The only proof will be when it gets up and running.

A worrying development before this bill was passed was a large amendment dropped on the bill late in consideration. It doesn’t give One Nation great hope that the government has done what it needs to fix the treatment of veterans once and for all.

Transcript

One Nation supports measures to simplify veterans’ entitlements. At the moment, it seems to many veterans that they need to be a lawyer just to receive entitlements that should be easily accessible. In this government bill, the Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, it’s difficult to say whether the government’s proposal will meet veterans’ needs for clarity and ease. Until we see the legislation put into action, when the guidance filters its way through to the service agents, as the saying goes: the proof will be in the pudding.  

We’re willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to converting three acts, two thousand pages of legislation and more than 800 legislative instruments one act. As other senators have mentioned, it’s not rare for veterans to have claims under all three separate acts. This obviously needs desperate change. Throughout this process, we do not want to see any veterans worse off. One Nation notes with concern submissions that state some changes may have the intention of easier administration not achieving the veterans’ full entitlements. That’s a deep concern. We’ll be supporting the amendments codifying the Senate’s intent that no veteran is left worse off after this bill’s passage.  

In relation to the government’s amendment on sheet ED101, we’ve received concerns from the Families of Veterans Guild, as have many other senators, I’m sure. I’ll read them out so that they’re on the record from the impressively confident chief executive officer of the Families of Veterans Guild on this government amendment to its own bill. Why is the government having so many amendments?  

The letter is as follows: 

After being alerted to the amendment, I’ve read through the detail and have a number of concerns with it which are as follows: 

There has been no public announcement or public communication from the Department of Defence or Veterans Affairs about it, and as a result there has been no consultation with the veteran community regarding its content. This amendment proposes a significant structural change to the Defence and Veteran system in Australia. It is arguably a Bill in its own right, and ought to be treated as such. Our view is that it ought to be introduced as an amendment to the Defence Act 1903 and debated accordingly. Instead, it is being added on to the VETS Bill in order to be rushed through the parliament— 

Here we go again, Labor rushing. She continues with No. 2: 

The intent of the VETS Bill is to harmonise the legislative frameworks that govern the provision of veteran entitlements and supports, it is not to make fundamental structural changes to the veteran system. That is a separate issue— 

She says. She goes on to No. 3: 

The object outlined in the amendment, “improve suicide prevention”, is extremely broad, unclear, and lacks any insight into tangible work that will be done to achieve the objective. This objective requires significant work to be more specific, focusing on issues we know are challenges in the veteran community like reducing the incidents and rate of suicide among the Defence and Veteran population, and improving the effectiveness of suicide prevention initiatives within this community. 

The amendment outlines that the commission only needs to provide two public reports on the status of the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. This isn’t good enough. The reason the concept of the independent body outlined in the amendment received initial support from the veteran community was because for too long recommendations from previous inquiries have been shelved. 700+ recommendations which could have resulted in better health and wellbeing outcomes for veterans and their families were left to collect dust. The amendment ought to compel the commission to report annually to the Parliament, the veteran community, and the Australian public on the status of the Royal Commission’s recommendations until such time as they are implemented and their effectiveness evaluated. 

She goes on, under No. 5: 

The amendment provides the Minister with the power to direct the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. However, before the Commissioner reports to the Minister (at which point the report is to be tabled) the Minister may vary or withdraw the request. Does this mean the inquiry results are never made public? This point must be clarified. 

In No. 6, she says: 

The amendment outlines that the commission can inquire into the ‘entire Defence ecosystem’ but doesn’t define what that is. With the amendment providing significant powers to the proposed commission, this must be defined understood and consulted. As it stands, the authority this commission would have could affect more than 5,000 non-profit organisations in Australia who provide support to veterans. 

She says, under No. 7: 

Veteran families once again are omitted from this amendment, other than a mention that they will be ‘listened to’. The Royal Commission highlighted the important role of veteran families and the significantly implications (including related to mental health) that service and suicide have on them, yet they are excluded from the commission’s remit. Will it require a Royal Commission into the ill health, wellbeing and high suicide rates amongst veteran families before they are taken seriously by their government? 

It’s a good question she’s asking. Under ‘our expectations’, she says: 

The Families of Veterans Guild supports the establishment of an independent body to oversee the defence and veteran system and the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. However, it fundamentally disagrees with rushing an un-consulted amendment through parliament which could have significant consequences for the system, and the communities within it. 

She goes on: 

The Guild’s expectations were set by the Minister in his media release on the appointment of the interim Commissioner— 

where the minister said: 

“Mr Manthorpe will head the organisation and work across government to deliver the establishment of a legislated oversight body by September 2025. 

As part of the Albanese Government’s response to the Royal Commission, we have committed $9.5 million of funding, as part of MYEFO, to support its implementation, including: 

$5 million over two years to fund the appointment of the Interim Head of the Defence and Veterans’ Service Commission, and to establish a cross-agency taskforce to provide advice to Government”— 

that’s the end of the minister’s quote. She goes on: 

We expected DVA and Defence to therefore consult with those who could and would be impacted by this amendment. That hasn’t happened. 

She said, ‘We are especially shocked by this, considering the unwillingness of the minister and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to support and implement amendments to the vets bill aimed at removing archaic and offensive language, due to concerns it would hold up passage of the bill. Yet an amendment which does bring cost implications and hasn’t been consulted on is deemed acceptable.’ This is the last paragraph: ‘We’d like to see this amendment withdrawn so that it can go through the proper process, including consultation, to ensure it is fit for purpose and reduces the risk of having unintended consequences on and within the defence and veteran community.’ That quote is from the letter from the Families of Veterans Guild, and that’s where it ends. 

One Nation is greatly concerned that the government is operating this way and dropping significant changes on the Senate suddenly. We won’t even get time to discuss the bills tonight. We will be voting against this amendment because of those concerns and the lack of consultation. 

/2 Comments/by

Is Defence Prioritising Desk Jobs Over Frontline Fighters?

,

The shiny generals at Defence headquarters have spent huge amounts of taxpayer money on recruitment, yet the number of people employed has declined.

I’m worried that the Defence Force is stocking their numbers with university educated desk jockeys rather than the fighters we need.

Let’s see how they respond to this on notice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The defence minister has proudly declared this week the Defence Force is growing again. I’ve read what I think is your statement, and I’ve certainly read the secretary’s statement. Is the official one—yes, it is your statement.  

Adm. Johnston: From this afternoon?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Adm. Johnston: Yes, that’s my statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: The last time we heard that we were on a growth path, Senator Shoebridge pointed out you were actually on a shrink path going backwards in personnel. How many infantry sergeant positions do you have across the Army?  

Adm. Johnston: I might invite the Chief of Army to come up to better answer that question.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: While I’m looking for the specific numbers, I would offer to you that the sergeant rank is one of the areas where we are significantly under the requirement. I’ll have to come back to you with those numbers.  

Senator ROBERTS: In June, you confirmed you were deficient by 143 sergeants. You said that you were responding to this with ‘early promotion opportunities’. That just sounds like you may be skipping people ahead without the necessary experience. How many corporals have you early promoted?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t have that number on me. You’re correct that one of the ways of filling those supervisory gaps is to promote people earlier than we would otherwise do. But, in order to do that, we obviously have an obligation, and it makes sense to invest in those individuals in terms of their own development and then, through our collective training, make sure that we step up the rate of experience that they’re able to glean. For example—  

Senator ROBERTS: I think I understand what you’re getting at. They must have the necessary experience, and you want to promote them to give them more experience. I get that. How many corporals have you early promoted? Could you get that on notice, please?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can get you that on notice. I don’t have it with me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Also take on notice the number of infantry sergeant positions you have across the Army.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Will do.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your current headcount for ECN 343, the infantry soldiers?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Again, I don’t have those figures to hand, but we’re doing quite well when it comes to ECN 343 privates.  

Senator ROBERTS: What has the headcount for ECN 343 been over previous periods? Could you put that on notice too?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: It’s been reasonably healthy. If I recall, it’s north of 90 per cent in terms of the fill rates. It’s not an area that’s on the—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like the actual headcount for the last five years, please, including the latest year.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you padding out the Defence Force numbers with non-combat roles to look good on the headline number?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide on notice your headcount for combat versus non-combat roles over the previous five years?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I just want to make sure I get you the right information here. Are you talking about across the entire Army or in infantry battalions?  

Senator ROBERTS: Infantry battalions and Army as well, please.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: So you want a breakdown from ECN 343, which is infantry. There are other infantry ECNs, as well, in our special operations. Would you like those included?  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to know basically how many are actual fighting, operational people and how many are non-combat roles. I want to make sure that we’re not padding figures with non-combat people.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can assure you we’re not padding any figures—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to see that.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Of course, combat in terms of functions, is broader than just infantry. It includes armour, which includes tank and cavalry, combat engineers and artillery and air defence as well as field artillery.’  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re going beyond my capability at the moment  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I just want to make sure—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know how many are non-combat roles and how many are combat roles.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Everyone in a formation is in a combat role. The function that they perform will differ across three functional lines: combat, combat support and combat services support. Obviously, each of those begins with ‘combat’ because we fight as teams but people fulfill different roles in those teams, if that makes sense.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll leave it, as a matter of trust, in your hands. I’d like to know how many are combat and how many are non-combat. I know you’ve just explained that to me, but it doesn’t have a lot of meaning in my mind. I’d like to know what the numbers are, combat and non-combat, if you can give me the flavour for that and explain it.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll endeavour to do our very best. I’ll give you a full breakdown across the Army in terms of combat, combat support and combat service support, and we’ll make sure that you get a breakdown in terms of core and the specifics in relation to ECN.  

Senator ROBERTS: And if you could define the terms, please.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes, we will.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve got no or minimal understanding of the Army, so treat me as completely ignorant.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’d be very happy to sit down with you and give you the army 101 brief, if that would be helpful, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: It may be, but let’s get the figures first. Thank you so much for the offer. 

/by

New Chief of Defence Johnston Faces Integrity Questions

,

Angus Campbell’s DSC (Distinguished Service Cross) is still a live issue and retiring won’t bury it. Now we know Campbell’s replacement, CDF Johnston, was the person who nominated Campbell for his DSC.

Johnston maintains he was just doing what everyone else did at the time. He did not disclose the specific action, with enemy forces in contact, he saw Campbell in that justified a combat award. 

Anyone hoping that there would be new type of direction and integrity leading the Defence Force might be worried that this doesn’t signal a change of pace.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: What about leadership and integrity and truth?  

Adm. Johnston: That was the third in terms of what I understood when you said ‘culture’: leadership is key to culture.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are on the same track. There’s been a long process, revisited over multiple years now, of estimates sessions, questions on notice and freedom of information requests on a particular issue. You’ve been in this room while I questioned your predecessor, Angus Campbell, over his Distinguished Service Cross, which I’m sure you will recall. Admiral Johnston, you were the officer who recommended Angus Campbell for that Distinguished Service Cross, weren’t you?  

Adm. Johnston: I was on the nomination for it, yes, that’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: According to Defence freedom of information request 522/23, you recommended him for that award on 29 September 2011. At that time, the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross required the recipient to be ‘in action’. Admiral Johnston, can you, once and for all, as a person who recommended Angus Campbell for his DSC, clarify what contact with the enemy you saw General Campbell in, in action, that led to your recommending him for a combat medal?  

Adm. Johnston: If I could answer—the nomination was provided to me in my role as the Deputy Chief of Joint Operations at the time. That position has, as one of its responsibilities, to look at the performance of commanders in our deployed forces, of which General Campbell was one at the time. So I progressed the nomination because of the function that I had in Joint Operations Command. I did, as part of that, indicate that the submission of the nomination should be after the period when General Campbell completed his tenure, which was the case. The definition of ‘in action’ that I applied is consistent with that which had been standing for some time, as to commanders—and certainly in General Campbell’s case, I believe, he spent more than 100 days in Afghanistan, as part of his command role, in an area that was classified as a warlike zone.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘A warlike zone’?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was he in a war zone?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And facing fire?  

Adm. Johnston: He was, as part of his duties, rotating through the places where Australian soldiers and others were located, experiencing the same threats as they had in those locations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your definition of ‘in action’?  

Adm. Johnston: The definition I applied is the same as what had been applied by my predecessors and over, I think, eight commanders prior to General Campbell, who had been nominated for a Distinguished Service Cross. It was an individual who is operating in an area where it is a warlike zone and there are threats from hostile forces.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did that definition come into place the day after his nomination? I think beforehand it was direct action.  

Adm. Johnston: The definition changed before his nomination, but the application of what we understood that to be is consistent before General Campbell’s nomination. 

/by

Government Strips Medals Over Brereton Report Allegations

,

One day after the anniversary of 9/11 and three days after the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide, the government has decided to strip medals from some junior and mid level officers over war crime allegations in the Brereton Report. Despite this, the former Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, is wearing a medal for commanding those same people he has said should be stripped of their medals.

Accountability starts at the top. Defence Minister Richard Marles stands condemned for his decision and its timing.

Transcript

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong. 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. Minister, why do soldiers under General Campbell ‘s command lose medals while he keeps his medal for commanding them?

Senator WONG: I thank the senator for his question. Senator Roberts, as the Deputy Prime Minister has stated to the House of Representatives today, we finalised our commitment to close out the recommendations of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan inquiry report, known as the Brereton report, which was commissioned in 2016. The report found credible information of alleged unlawful killings of 39 individuals in 23 separate incidents. Further, there was credible information of a subculture of elitism and deviation from acceptable standards. It made a broad range of findings and 143 recommendations. As the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined, we have taken final action as a consequence of that report resulting in the closure of 139 of these recommendations.

Two recommendations of the report related to command accountability and the treatment of honours and awards given to commanders during the relevant period. These recommendations relate to a small number of individuals who held command positions during the period in which the inquiry found evidence of unlawful conduct. The Deputy Prime Minister has written to—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: President, on a point of order: the question was very specific about Angus Campbell’s Distinguished Service Cross. Why won’t it be stripped?

The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Roberts. Minister, please continue.

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I was seeking to respond by way of explaining how we are dealing with the recommendations of the report which relate to command accountability. I understand that the Minister for Defence, the DPM, has written to those whose awards were referred for consideration to advise that there has been a conclusion to that consideration of those awards. Decisions that have been made in relation to those awards are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Brereton report. Decisions around command accountability are consistent with those same findings. Obviously we’re not in a position, given the Privacy Act, to disclose the details— (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

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

Senator WONG: I will see if I can get any further information to respond to the assertion in relation to the panel because I don’t recall the facts being quite as you assert them, Senator Roberts, but it isn’t in my portfolio and so I will certainly have a look at that. But, as I read out in my primary response, two of the recommendations of the Brereton report did relate to command accountability and the treatment of honours and awards given to commanders during the relevant period. There was an alternative assertion in your question, and that is not the advice to me. We have acted on the basis of and in a manner consistent with those recommendations.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: 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, yet there are no records of General Campbell being in action. Why does your government refuse to have the honours and awards appeals tribunal examine his award?

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I think that is a slightly different question to the one you asked me, which related to the Brereton report. In relation to the actual awarding of those honours, that’s obviously not a political decision but a decision that is governed within that honours and awards system. I would make the point that these matters have been canvassed at length by, I think, Senator Lambie in a number of estimates, and I’d refer you to those answers, including direct answers—to my recollection, including before the change of government—from General Campbell himself.

/3 Comments/by

Submissions Closing Soon: Defence Honours and Awards Inquiry

Submissions to the inquiry looking at Defence Medals, including diggers getting screwed over and Angus Campbell’s DSC, are closing soon [30 August 2024].

Submissions can be made here: Defence honours and awards system – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)

Let me know in the comments which town you’d like a public hearing to be held in.  Should we bring the inquiry to Townsville? 

/6 Comments/by

Radio Interview: Defence Honours and Awards System Senate Inquiry

,

Thank you to Ben Fordham of 2GB for inviting me to discuss this inquiry. The inquiry aims to look at potentially illegal medals being awarded to senior defence officers, hear from ADF personnel and explore possible improvements to the Defence Awards and Honours system.

If we want people to serve this country, we have to back them and hold their leadership accountable. 

Transcript

Ben Fordham: Well, Australia has a new chief of defence, Admiral David Johnston is in and General Angus Campbell is out. He’s officially stepped down from the role after a rocky six year term. And during that time, General Angus Campbell quickly became one of the most divisive figures in the military. He didn’t do himself any favors when he tried to strip war medals from all troops who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.

The then defense minister, Peter Dutton, was forced to intervene and he reversed that controversial decision. But now a medal on General Campbell’s chest is being put under the microscope at a new Senate inquiry. He was recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross back in 2011. That’s Australia’s third highest military decoration. The DSC is awarded for distinguished command and leadership in action as commander of forces in Afghanistan.

At the time, the criteria for someone to receive the award required them to be in action, meaning to be under direct fire of an adversary. But out of nowhere, three months after General Campbell was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed. The criteria of being in action was changed to in warlike operations. Senator Malcolm Roberts, who will lead the inquiry, says senior officers have abused the defence honours and awards system. Meanwhile, enlisted personnel have to fight for recognition and higher ups downgrade their medals. Malcolm Roberts The senator from Queensland, with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is on the line right now. Senator, good morning to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Good morning, Ben. What a fabulous summary spot on mate, accurate.

Ben Fordham: So what are you suggesting is going on here?

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m suggesting is that these senior officers -the top brass of our Australian Defence Force are looking at medals as a way of rewarding each other, they just seem to think it’s an entitlement that comes with their salary package. But what we’re really looking for is some integrity with regard to the way that the rank and file the serving enlisted soldiers are treated because they’re not getting their medals. And by the way, Ben, I want to thank all ADF people for their service. And I also want to appreciate especially the serving members and veterans who have been working with us to restore accountability over many months in this Australian Defence Force. The pride and respect …

Ben Fordham: I’ll just jump in for a moment and ask you just about General Angus Campbell, because that’s going to be the key thing that people will focus on in this inquiry. As I said, when he was recommended, it was for, well, at the time they said the person who was receiving the award was required to be in action.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, “two way rifle range”. thinking.

Ben Fordham: Well, hang on a moment. Was he in action? Well, yes, he was over there. He was obviously playing a critical role. But the criteria also said you had to be “under direct fire of an adversary”. And that raised a few flags, didn’t it, that people in the military thinking, well, does General Campbell fall into that category?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, no, he doesn’t. He was away from the action. He was in an air conditioned office several hundred kilometers away and quite safe. What’s really galling people is that the same man refuses to remove his own medal after he tried to strip 3000 people who served in Special operations task force of their Meritorious Unit citation because of the Brereton inquiry. So if he was in action and he was commanding them, then he should have stripped his own medal. But he kept his medal and tried to strip it from the from the soldiers who are actually in direct action.

Ben Fordham: Okay. I just want to stick with this criteria for a moment and can you just confirm this? So originally it said that you had to be under direct fire.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct

Ben Fordham: And that’s when red flags were raised and people were thinking, does he really fall into that category? You say he does not. Then three months after he was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed and the criteria changed from inaction to in warlike operations. Is that right?

Senator ROBERTS: That is correct Ben. You’ve said it so well, as I said before, you’ve said it so well today. It’s perfect.

Ben Fordham: Okay. So was he in warlike operations?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, he was in the Middle East. He was in near Afghanistan, near the theater of war. But he wasn’t actually actively involved in the war.

Ben Fordham: Why did they change the criteria?

Senator ROBERTS: Probably to justify his medal because he was awarded the medal incorrectly, is my belief.

Ben Fordham: Okay. I want you to elaborate on that. You believe that the criteria changed to suit General Angus Campbell?

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what it looks like Ben. And that’s what a lot of troops are saying. And they’re saying that the top brass are getting medals, not justified, and they’re missing out themselves down the lower ranks.

Ben Fordham: And there had been requests, people had asked questions when the criteria was in action, people actually requested some details to say, okay, can General Angus Campbell give us some answers on when he was in action and there were no answers forthcoming, right?

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. He was mute. There was nothing coming.

Ben Fordham: All right. So will he appear before this inquiry?

Senator ROBERTS: That’s up to the Senate inquiry to justify. I won’t be leading the inquiry. I will be a participating member on it. But it’s a standing inquiry. Standing committee that’s already got six members appointed, but I’ll be participating in it as an additional participatory member. But that’s up to the inquiry and the Senate inquiry if they want to call General Campbell, they can force him to come. They can subpoena him if necessary. So the powers are there.

Ben Fordham: So how do you sum up his time leading the defence force?

Senator ROBERTS: A shambles, mess. The rank and file – the morale in the Australian Defence Forces is atrocious. Where we’ve seen some pride and respect for the Australian Defence Force. We need that to be restored and the troops who are talking to us and there are many saying we’re absolutely correct and that the morale is low, the turnover is high, the recruitment is falling. We have more people leaving than coming to the Australian Defence Force at the moment. We’re going backwards in numbers and so this is a security matter. It’s an essential security matter, a national security matter, Ben.

Ben Fordham: He really lost the dressing room, didn’t he, Malcolm Roberts, when he decided to strip war medals from everyone who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly. And the Yamamoto principle from second World War says that if a crime is committed in the theater of war by a soldier, then everyone up the line is accountable and responsible. What he did was he stripped medals from – he tried to strip medals from the 3000 and yet hung onto his own. Yet he was commanding the troops he was stripping medals from.

Ben Fordham: And if it wasn’t for Peter Dutton, who was the minister at the time, they would have lost those medals. Thankfully, he stepped in and I’m going to be really keen to see what comes out of this inquiry. So thank you so much for joining us.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome. Ben. Thank you.

Ben Fordham: Malcolm Roberts, the Senator for Queensland with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

/by

Inquiry to Probe Outgoing Defence Chief’s Medal

,

A powerful Senate Inquiry established into the Defence medals system has opened for submissions. 

The inquiry initiated by my motion will investigate potentially illegal medals awarded to senior Defence officers, the experiences of ADF personnel and potential improvements to the Defence Awards and Honours system. 

Read my full media release below.

The terms of reference for the inquiry are available on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade website: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/DefenceHonours47/Terms_of_Reference 

Make a submission to the inquiry: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/DefenceHonours47  

How to make a submission (including how to make a confidential submission): https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/How_to_make_a_submission  

Media ReleaseDownload
/by

Senate Condemns War Memorial Defacement

,

On 29 June, protestors vandalised War Memorials in Canberra.  These disgusting acts must be condemned. 

Freedom of speech and protest are fundamental parts of our democracy. Spray painting memorials of dead soldiers is neither of these.

I joined with Senators Lambie and Hanson in strongly condemning the defacement of war memorials by pro-palestinian protestors, which insults both current and former Australian Defence Force personnel and disrespects the memorials’ significance as national symbols of pride and remembrance. 

This divisive campaign by the Greens undermines Australia’s respect for our defence forces and reflects an anti-Australian agenda. Vandalism of these memorials is an affront to our country’s values and those who serve to protect them. 

We stand in solidarity with service men and women, their families, and all Australians who honour their sacrifice.

Transcript

One Nation supports this motion, and I’ll read it again: 

That the Senate condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protestors which is deeply insulting for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and remembrance. 

It undermines the very core and heart of our beautiful country, and the Australian people. It undermines the respect we have, as a nation and as individuals, for the service of so many caring Australians in our defence forces, past and present, and it reveals the pro-Palestinian protesters’ true, anti-Australian agenda. I join with Senator Lambie and Senator Hanson in condemning the Greens for this divisive campaign that they are pushing based on ideology and harvesting votes. It is essentially treason—defacing and desecrating our country and what we stand for. Australians, whatever their views of the wars we’ve engaged in, take pride in and honour our service men and women. 

I recall a friend of mine; when we were in our 20s, he made the off-the-cuff comment that he despised the War Memorial because it was a memorial to the glory of war. I said: ‘No, no. It’s not. It’s a memorial to the service that men and women have given in supporting and defending this country and what we stand for.’ He has gone on to be a proud grandfather, with two boys now serving in the Army and a daughter serving in the police force of Queensland. He has children and grandchildren who have served and are serving our country. 

Free speech, as Senator Cash pointed out, is not vandalism and desecration, which is the violation of property rights and must be punished. To all service men and women and their families and relatives: thank you. We will vote in favour of this motion to condemn the acts of defacing war memorials in your name. 

/2 Comments/by

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