Posts

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