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

Government Fails to Produce Papers – Taipan Helicopter Ditching

The Albanese government is rushing through legislation that will effectively give them similar power and control to World War era demands for ‘your papers please’. I’m not saying this is the intention of the Albanese government, but it is the framework that is being put in place in line with the initiative from the World Economic Forum, an international body founded by Klaus Schwab.

It’s ironic then, that the government is failing to produce its own papers. The Senate orders the government to produce papers and the government refuses. Like this situation here in the Senate, where there was an order to produce documents over 6 months ago relating to a non-fatal Taipan helicopter ditching in Jervis Bay. The government failed to produce any details even after Defence promised they would. Why? The hierarchy in Defence is covering up their mistakes.

The Taipan helicopters should have been pulled from service a decade ago. There were technical shortcomings in their capability that could not be defended. There were dangerous, catastrophic safety issues that Defence knew about. Instead of dealing with those issues or grounding the helicopter, as they should have, Defence and the politicians kept it in service and flying. Now four personnel who piloted and flew in that helicopter have died in a crash. We hope their families, despite their enormous loss, will find peace.

With so much at stake, the Australian people deserve to know the details. The senate is the house of review and when the senate orders the government to produce documents, then that is what must happen. Without transparency and accountability, we are not much better than the regime mentioned above.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Pursuant to standing order 164 and, by coincidence, genuinely by coincidence, with the previous motion, I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong, regarding the failure to respond to order for production of documents No. 243, agreed on 22 June 2023, in relation to the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter incident at Jervis Bay.

Senator Gallagher: I am happy to follow that up. We didn’t have notice of the OPD that Senator Roberts was going to refer to, so the minister isn’t here and able to provide a direct response. Normally, a heads-up is provided so that we can prepare an answer. I acknowledge you came over in question time and said that you would be doing this, but you didn’t inform us of what minister or OPD you were after. So I would have to come back to the chamber at a later time with an explanation. Could Senator Roberts indicate the number of the OPD he referred to?

Senator ROBERTS: Certainly; it’s No. 200. I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. So much for the Albanese Labor government’s promises to be transparent and accountable! Yet again, they’ve failed a transparency deadline, failing to produce the documents the Senate ordered them to produce six months ago. In March this year, a Taipan helicopter was forced to ditch into the sea in Jervis Bay. No people died. Two were injured. Thankfully, those injuries were minor due to the pilots’ skills—skills they shouldn’t have had to rely on yet had to, because Defence made them fly a dodgy helicopter. Separately, in July, a Taipan helicopter crashed in the Whitsundays, killing four Defence personnel. This order for the production of documents related to the non-fatal Jervis Bay incident in March. The government has failed to produce any details after the Defence brass promised they would produce such reports.

What you didn’t hear in the minister’s explanation is the true story of why these documents haven’t been produced. The hierarchy in Defence are covering up their mistakes. The Taipan helicopters should have been pulled from service a decade ago. There were technical shortcomings in their capability that could not be defended. There were dangerous, catastrophic safety issues that Defence knew about. Instead of dealing with those issues or grounding the helicopter, as they should have, Defence and the politicians kept it in service and flying. Now four personnel who piloted and flew in that helicopter have died in a crash. We remember now Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock—or, as he was known, Phil—troop commander Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent and Corporal Alexander Naggs. We hope their families, despite their enormous loss, will find peace.

Next—and I do not say this lightly—the Defence hierarchy and politicians who allowed the Taipan helicopter to continue flying have blood on their hands. No-one in Defence can claim not to know about this helicopter’s problems. The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter was identified on a list of ‘projects of concern’ in 2011, 12 years ago. The Taipan remained on that list until it was grounded for good after the Whitsundays crash, 13 years before its planned retirement. During its lifetime, the Taipan was grounded no fewer than nine times due to ongoing problems, yet Defence kept flying it—or, rather, Defence kept soldiers flying it. Australian taxpayers spent at least $3.7 billion on the project. The Taipan cost $50,000 an hour to fly. I can hear Senator Shoebridge laughing, and I understand why. Compare that to the Black Hawk, which costs an estimated $15,000 an hour, 30 per cent of the cost. The Australian National Audit Office identified some of the MRH-90 Taipan’s many serious problems. These included engine failure—without an engine, helicopters fly like a brick; transmission, oil cooler and fan failures; poor availability of spares; on the Navy aircraft, problems with the cargo hook; and, on the Army helicopters, problems with door gun mounts and the fast roping and rappelling device.

Those are some of the problems. Yet Defence kept flying the helicopter. The Navy couldn’t hook cargo into its Taipans. The Army couldn’t fire guns at the same time that soldiers were in the helicopter. Our Australian Army consider the cabin and row equipment are not fit for purpose, as the seat size and harness cannot accommodate personnel wearing combat gear. Yet Defence kept flying it. They knew the engine could fail and the helicopter could drop out of the sky, yet they kept on flying it.

Defence analyst Marcus Hellyer wrote in 2021: Back when I worked in the Department of Defence, we used to occupy ourselves from time to time calculating how much money the taxpayer would save in the long run if we just walked away from the MRH-90 utility helicopter and bought Black Hawk helicopters instead. The answer was a lot. And the sooner you did it, the more you’d save, by avoiding sinking more acquisition dollars into the MRH-90 and realising the substantially lower operating costs of the Black Hawk. But even though those numbers were shared with Defence’s senior decision-makers, the department couldn’t bring itself to take that step.

Defence had all the information. They knew the Taipan was a waste of billions of dollars. They knew it could not do the job it was meant to do and supposed to do. They knew it had catastrophic safety risks. They knew all of this for more than a decade, yet Defence kept on flying it. That’s why this government will not answer this order for the production of documents after almost six months. The cost and particularly the fatalities—avoidable fatalities—are huge.

I also want to talk about another huge impact: the impact on the Defence Force’s morale. What happens when you ask someone to keep operating faulty, life-threatening equipment? What happens to trust? You know the
answer. Look at the hypocrisy of the Chief of the Defence Force awarding himself a medal reserved for those in action, when he was sitting a thousand kilometres from the action. How does that build trust? It destroys trust.

Some years ago, when I was working in the mining industry, I met two people who had come from the defence forces, officers from the Army specifically. One was so highly skilled that he had been asked on occasion to take six of his mates and go into the jungles of Vietnam, well beyond enemy lines, take on a job and come back. He rose to be in charge of jungle warfare training. Barry—along with John, who had been a captain in the army—told me the key to Army culture and Defence Force culture. That key is mateship. Barry had to lecture other countries’ defence forces and security forces on counterterrorism work. He said in most countries they did not understand what mateship was. It’s intangible, yet the impacts are so tangible.

He also talked about standards. Everyone who joins the Army, for example, comes into the Army and is then made equal with everyone else so that they get the feeling of looking after their mates. Then they’re trained to a very high standard, and they can rely on each other and those standards. I’ll tell you a little story. Barry and John both said that when you’re behind a log in incoming machine gun fire, the only thing worse than jumping over that log and going into that machine gun fire is running away and leaving your mate behind. That’s how strong it is in the Army. There will be lots of people from the Army who will be watching this parliament and will know exactly what I’m talking about.

The third part of mateship is trust. How can we have trust when the defence forces are going woke? I hear from so many soldiers and airmen and sailors that they’re sick and tired of the defence forces going woke and it will jeopardise their lives in battle.

That is not looking after our soldiers.

Then we talk about national security. All of that impacts on national security. I’ll say it again: the key strategic weapon we have in this country in our armed forces is at the mateship, the training, the standards and what used to be trust. The warriors are fine. The problem is the Chief of the Defence Force, the top brass and, as we’ve heard recently, the minister who is supposed to hold them accountable.

We’ve had some preliminary briefings, and I want to commend a young public servant who said that the problems with the Taipans are not just in the military but also in the politics and the politicians. These politicians and the top brass are responsible for deaths. They have blood on their hands. Even the slightest amount of scrutiny on this project will reveal the pervasive corruption in the Defence hierarchy, reveal politicians’ mistakes and show that these people in Defence and in politics have blood on their hands. One Nation will continue pushing to hold those in the Defence hierarchy to account and protect our warriors serving in the Defence Force.

/1 Comment/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

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

Does the ADF really think electric vehicles can defend our nation?

,

I asked questions of two Army generals as to the viability of military EVs in the field. They spoke of the challenges of recharging in the field, considering factors such as solar charging and the use of hybrid vehicles.

I was told that the technology was not there yet but the hope was that technology would have matured by 2030-35 when the fleet of vehicles may be transformed to EV status and technological problems be overcome.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: My questions are to do with the Army’s electric vehicles. Since the publicly released information of electric vehicle conversion of the Australian designed and built Bushmaster, has the Australian Army progressed to test the operational feasibility of other Australian electric military vehicles in the field? I understand from Minister Conroy, who gave us a crossbencher briefing, that this is at concept stage at the moment, nothing more.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll begin, and then I’ll hand to my colleague Major General Vagg for any further comments.  The concept demonstrator that you referred to was part of our power and energy work, which involves some studies to understand how we can use alternative sources of fuel (1) to ensure an operational capability and (2) to reduce the logistic footprint that is created by bulk fuel. There are a couple of important points to note. Firstly, we were able to produce an electric Bushmaster, but that was to really test the parameters of power generation and how that work would translate into the design of the vehicle and to really test the
art of the possible.

Of course, the operating environment would probably require us to have a hybrid approach, similar to a hybrid passenger vehicle, with both solar panels and also the fuel that would be required. So it is on a path of development to determine how we can continue to operate vehicles and reduce the logistics footprint and, obviously, the output of those vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What progress has been made? What stage are you at right now?

Major Gen. Vagg: As the chief has alluded to, we produced the capability demonstrator with Thales. One of the limitations is power generation and storage and the distribution — which I think you’d appreciate —

Senator Roberts: Easy to understand that.

Major Gen. Vagg: for operational use. We’ve got a number of studies underway to look at power generation and electrification of various sizes of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Those studies are indicating that the technology won’t be in a mature state until about 2030. We have plans from 2035 onwards to look at how we’ll transition the broader Army fleet as we move across.

Senator Roberts: So the time frame is you’re hoping to put something into operation by 2030.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s the time when the studies are indicating the technology will be mature enough so we can field it as an operational capability.

Senator Roberts: So at the moment there’s no real understanding based on anything concrete—it’s just studies at the moment. You haven’t got a plan or deadline or date.

Major Gen. Vagg: As I said, from about 2035 we’ve got plans to look at starting to convert Army’s fleets across to electric vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What are your findings on energy density? One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels like petrol and diesel and gas is that they have very high energy density—not as high as nuclear, but very high energy density. Sunlight is incredibly low.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s a good observation. To inform some of that work, we’ve got trials with electric vehicles that are occurring this year. We have 40 electric vehicles—civilian—that are operating in the ACT. From 2024 we’ll look at a series of small, light commercial vehicles that will use hydrogen cells. We’ll use those capability demonstrators to inform further work and how we’ll look to operationalise that.

Senator Roberts: To what stage has the thinking gotten in terms of replacing the current diesel powered vehicles?

Major Gen. Vagg: Again, I go back to my first point. Looking at the levels of maturity for those technologies, we don’t expect that to mature to where we can deploy it as a legitimate operational capability until about 2030.

Senator Roberts: Is there any way in which our concrete operational plans assume electric vehicles, say, by 2035? Are we going to be reliant upon these things being developed?

Major Gen. Vagg: I don’t think we’d be reliant on them being developed, but that’s a goal where we’ll look to do that transition.

Senator Roberts: So it’s a goal, not a plan yet.

Lt Gen. Stuart: If I can describe the approach, there are a whole range of emerging technologies that we need to understand, and then we need to test their application to the set of tasks that we need to provide for the integrated force. In some cases, I expect, those will be successful; in other cases they may not be. What we want is to be informed and take advantage of the developments in technology as they’re developing. We work with both academia and industry to explore the art of the possible. We’re not making any presuppositions about exactly when, because we just don’t have the evidence or the data to support exactly where that technology may be. What we’re working on at the moment in the case of electrification is that we think, based on the advice we’ve received, that technology—noting your point about energy density and the requirement to operate vehicles in operational situations—is probably toward the end of this decade. That is our estimation based on the work we’ve done so far and the advice from experts that we’ve been working with.

Senator Roberts: Have you deployed the vehicle in the wet or in the north or in the desert or put it through any arduous tests, or is it still very much a concept?

Major Gen. Vagg: It’s still very much a concept.

Senator Roberts: What about battery charging? You mentioned that as one of your challenges. I think, from memory, on Friday afternoon the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Conroy, said that you had some concepts for fast charging. Is that correct?

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll have to take that one on notice. As I say, as part of the power and energy work we’re doing, we’re looking at a whole range of things, which include both power generation and power storage—which includes battery technology.

Senator Roberts: What would power generation involve—what sort of concept?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Solar, hybrid engines—

Senator Roberts: Solar panels?

Lt Gen. Stuart: and those sorts of things.

Senator Roberts: Hybrid using hydrocarbon fuelled engines?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes.

Senator Roberts: You’re not far enough advanced, then, to discuss the recharging question for field operation?

Major Gen. Vagg: No. As I alluded to before, we’re still looking at how that technology matures. That’s one of the principal challenges that we need to overcome.

Senator Roberts: What’s your early gut feeling? Much of the science on this and the application of the science on these technologies is still hypothetical—wish.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t think my gut feeling is particularly relevant. We’ll follow the science and what can be demonstrated and how that can be applied to the work that we are required to do. But we think it makes a
lot of sense to be understanding and to be working with experts on how we can apply new and emerging technologies to the business of Army in this instance.

Senator Roberts: I’m reassured now. Initially, I wondered if we were going to be dependent on something happening in the next few years, and I had visions of extension cords all across North Queensland and the Territory. That has put that to rest. Thank you very much.

/21 Comments/by

Government opening the door to China’s bullying in Antarctica

, , ,

Australia claims a very large part of Antarctica as our territory. Despite this, China is muscling in, refusing to sign treaties and building 5 research bases in the Australian Antarctic territory. To add to the worries, Australian Government has back-flipped on its plans to build a strategically important, all-weather runway at Davis research base.

This opens the door for China to do it instead, further eroding our claim to Antarctic territory.

The decision came from the minister for environment which begs the question, have we let China take a strategic win because we were a little bit worried about the penguin’s feelings?

Transcript

I think the last stretch.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here tonight. Minister Sussan Ley recently made a decision to not proceed with the building of an all-weather runway at Davis research base in Antarctica. What level of consultation did the Minister have with the Department of Defence and what advice was received prior to making such a decision, which many see as retrograde?

Senator, I can probably assist with that. That was a decision taken by the Government. There was extensive consultation with a range of departments and indeed I and Mr. Ellis personally, were in discussions with the Secretary and the CDF and others on that matter before it was considered by Government.

I understand Defence were pushing it.

I think the view taken by the Government was that the combination of the very significant environmental impact, the proceeding with the airstrip, would do together with the very sizable cost, ultimately meant that proceeding with a project that would not provide results for another 15 or 20 years was not viable. However, there are a whole range of other ways that we are very confident we’ll be able to ensure continuing and indeed expanded presence in Antarctica.

Was the Minister aware of the likelihood of China then building the strategically important runway, thereby enhancing its claim for a portion of the Australian Antarctic territory when the Australian Antarctic territory is renegotiated, or even sooner, because China is not a party to the Treaty?

A full range of geopolitical and other considerations were available to government in taking the decision, Senator.

Is the Minister aware that China has already built five research bases within the Australian Antarctic territory to enhance its future claim?

The answer is yes, we certainly are aware. I’ll let Mr. Ellis answer as to the number, but certainly we’re aware that China, and indeed a number of other countries, have established bases in the area claimed by Australia.

Does this mean that environmental issues, such as the comfort of penguins can be used to negotiate, to negate issues of national security to the detriment of all Australians? You mentioned that, you mentioned the 15 year time span for the return, I’ve just come from the Australian Rail Trade Corporation and they’re talking about a 30 year timeframe.

Some of these projects do involve a long period of time, Senator. But the answer is that we are very confident that the right decision was made, taking into account all of the factors and, as I’ve said, indicating that Australia’s is continuing presence. Our scientific research, our expeditionary exploration are second to none and we’ll continue over the decades ahead.

So is this yet another example of the short-term strategy visions that have dogged Australian antarctic policy, antarctic policy making us a pushover for the Chinese Communist Party?

I wouldn’t agree with the premise of any of that Senator, Australia very significantly ensures that we are a strong player in the international system that focuses on Antarctica, on CCAMLR and Australia, through investments, such as the Nuyina, which we’ve just been talking about at 1.8 billion dollar investment together with all of the other activities that Mr. Ellis and our hundreds of staff, both in Hobart and in Antarctica undertake, we believe that we are very much ensuring Australia’s interests are protected and advanced.

Perhaps a question to Senator Hume. The Chinese Communist Party just rolls over weak leaders. They see in Australia a country that is handed over its sovereignty to many UN agreements, destroying our energy, for example, our property rights, UN policies gutting our culture. These get no respect from the CCP and I think it makes us targets. So, was this the best decision to make at a time of heightened concern about the expansion as policies and aggression of the CCP? Especially as what they’re doing to us in trade.

I don’t necessarily agree with the premise of your question, Senator Roberts, but what I will say is that Australia in no way will be ceding any of our territory. The decision that was made was always gonna be contingent on a final investment decision next year and careful consideration of the environmental impact, economic investment and broader national interests. Australia feels that it’s particularly important that all nations place the Antarctic environment at the absolute centre of their decision making, and respect to the Treaty system. And the government is now considering further investments in our scientific research and environmental programmes in Antarctica. That include to continue to create jobs and investment for Tasmania, as the international gateway to East Antarctica.

Thank you, Chair.

[Attendant] Thank you very much.

/by

Government delays moving Defence data from CHINESE-OWNED company

, ,

Sensitive Defence information is still being held at data centers owned by Global Switch, a Chinese-owned multinational company, despite promises to have all government data migrated out by 2020. Regardless of the complexity of the move or data being “less sensitive”, this is an unacceptable situation. The Chinese Communist Party must be laughing at our Government.

Transcript

Okay, thank you. Getting onto storage of defence data, including critical secure data. In February, 2021, the Australian federal government renewed its contract with the firm Global Switch, despite serious security concerns. The company has hosted Australia’s sensitive and high security data for some time. Elegant Jubilee, a Chinese consortium, bought 49% of the parent British company Alders Gate Investments, causing an ownership change for Global Switch in 2016. Then treasurer Scott Morrison said in 2017 that the defence data would be shifted back to a government owned hub for security reasons. After he became prime minister, he later decided to extend their contracts with Global Switch. Does the firm Global Switch still host Australia’s sensitive and high security defence data?

Senator, Jeff Goedecke, First Assistant Secretary ICT Service Delivery and Reform. The Global Switch facility, which is completely controlled by the commonwealth, does hold some of the less sensitive data. There are as indicated in the release by secretary Moriarty in February last year, there are plans in place to migrate that data from Global Switch by 2025. This is in accordance with the whole of government hosting strategy.

So why was it decided to continue this arrangement, hosted ultimately with, with Chinese ownership?

It’s, it’s, it’s not Chinese ownership. As I said, the Commonwealth owns, has complete control of the facility, both from a physical perspective and from a, and a, a protection from a logical sense, from an ICT perspective and security perspective. The amount of equipment and data, and the complexity and interdependencies, necessitate a longer term to remove these things. There’s a, a great deal of reliance on defence business continuity, that requires a staged approach to remove this stuff. It basically, the complexity and size of the footprint, the payload inside the data centre, means it was impossible to, to move that over a very short period of time.

So when was the decision last made to, to leave it there, and eventually you take it off by 2025?

So, just bear with me, Senator

And Senator, Greg Moriarty, Secretary of the Department. All of, all of the highly sensitive information is, is long gone. So what, so-

What sort of information is there?

Well, this-

So we, so what happened was the government approved, back 2018 for defence to be funded to move what was sensitive data from the data centre out. That occurred by June, 2020. So that was all removed. Because of the size of the footprint of the remaining data, which is less sensitive data, again, still protected from a government perspective and government controlled. There was a, there is a process in place now where we are, have an evolution to move that data out. And that ties in with the additional lease, which expires in 2025.

So what is that less sensitive data?

It, it’s for a range, range of things. It could be administrative related. It could be some sort of logistic, but we wouldn’t normally discuss exactly what type of data we hold in what locations.

So there’s no risk whatsoever of the Chinese accessing it, ’cause they’re pretty good hackers.

There, there is no risk.

What, what, why can you be sure of that?

It’s, it’s based on the, the the facility itself has physical controls in place. That’s everything from, from it being a fully manned facility, it has all of the CCTV capabilities. It has, you know, alarms, it’s fully accredited. And in fact, the facility is accredited to look after more sensitive data. That hasn’t changed. So there’s a higher level of security than would normally be afforded that level of data, which is an important factor as well. In addition to that, we have ICT securities. So cybersecurity controls where we, we monitor that we have a, the defence security operations centre monitors cyber activity. And that includes that within the footprint as well. Gateway, secure gateways also assure the information. So from a defence perspective there aren’t risks related to that, Senator.

Has it been tested at all? ‘Cause the Chinese, some Chinese are very good hackers. I’m sure you know that.

Absolutely. So there are, defence has no indications at all that there’s been any compromise at all related to data held in that facility.

So it’s not a case then of the, the Fox looking after the hen house?

Not at all.

Okay.

No, but, and, and just to make sure that, I mean, that, that is why the government has, has directed defence to move all of the data by a particular point in time. Senator, we believe that the mitigation strategy that we have in place is very robust for the, for that level in, in fact, as Mr. Goedecke said, it’s, it’s much more significant wraparound than what normal data of that level would be. But we are moving out. We are, we are gonna remove absolutely any risk by, by removing ourselves from that, from that data centre. And the government has, has agreed the timeline.

Thank you. And thank you, too.

Additional Information

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/defence-delays-global-switch-data-centre-exit-by-up-to-five-years-560042

https://www.afr.com/companies/telecommunications/federal-bodies-struggle-to-exit-chinese-owned-data-centre-20200304-p546p5

/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

The Drums of War – 2SM with Marcus Paul

,

Governments are destroying our country which is making it harder to stand up to China. I talked to Marcus Paul this morning about that and how I was reminded over the weekend about just how good Australian manufacturing used to be.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] Hello, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts] Good morning, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul] All right, thank you how are you?

[Malcolm Roberts] Very well, thanks.

[Marcus Paul] What do you make of it all, the drums of war beating and all this rubbish?

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I think you summarised it very well, when you said marketing. It’s about pretending that the government is strong. Whereas in fact, I’ve just finished an inquiry report for the Northern Agenda. You know, what’s happening in our country, Marcus, is that the North is being held back along the same issues that the South is destroying. Energy, water, taxation, the basics. And the fundamental point about security is you have to have a strong economy. And the wombats in Canberra are destroying our economy through pandering to overseas bureaucrats, and selling our country out. It’s treasonous. So the fundamentals: we have to have a strong economy, a strong country, and that’s what we need to get back to.

[Marcus Paul] All right, with the fact that the, you know, the whole issue of quarantine during the pandemic, which is a federal responsibility, is being completely ballsed up, and palmed off by Morrison and his mates, with the fact that that’s completely being stuffed up. Be, you know, some of the reasons for the distraction, do you think?

[Malcolm Roberts] Possibly quite possibly, because you know, these politicians in Canberra have a habit of distracting, as you just said. But the whole pandemic has not been managed well. What we’ve got is an absence of data, that’s driving the plans. And we don’t have a plan, actually. We don’t even have a strategy. It just seems to be lurching from one thing to the next. One moment, one message to sell. Every single week, different message. There’s no coherent plan, that’s based on data. And I’ll talk more about that in a few weeks time, at senate estimates. But we need a plan for managing our economy, because that is fundamental to health. What we’re doing is destroying our economy, with some of the responses. I mean, people, you know, the Premiers of the States talk, and the Prime Minister talks about going and spending money in your state, and travelling. How the hell can people make plans when they could fly to Western Australia for example, and get locked down because they’ve got one positive test. They’d have to come back and spend $3,000 in quarantine. It’s just capricious. It’s destructive, it doesn’t consider the people.

[Marcus Paul] Your mates up there in the upper Hunter, might be as unhappy as what labor are at the moment, because I’m sorry, Pork-Barrelarow is out there with his chequebook, story this morning. And they’re promising funding to a number of women’s business organisations. While you know, there are other areas, probably should be prioritised. There’s a bit more pork barreling going on by the Berejiklian Barrilaro government, to sort of like keep your heads up on that, mate.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not surprised, are you?

[Marcus Paul] Well, of course not.

[Malcolm Roberts] But you know what these people are going around. What we have in this country is a system of having options every four years at the state level, every three years at the federal government level. And people don’t seem to realise that these promises have to be paid for. And who’s gonna pay for them? The very people who have taken part in the election, the voters. So, it’s a disrespectful way of running government, but it seems, the people seem to fall for it quite often. So we’ve gotta get more people aware of what’s going on in government, so that people realise that these promises are just hollow, and that they’re wasting money, quite often

[Marcus Paul] Aussie ingenuity and initiative, what’s happened to it? We used to make engines and wonderful pieces of technology.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, you’re absolutely correct, Marcus. A lot of your listeners, the older listeners will remember names like Lister, Southern Cross, Cooper, Sundial, Barzakov. These are just some of the names on old engines, old diesel engines that were purring and puttering along at the Dalby, I went out to the Dalby Show. You know, you would have gone to shows when you were a kid.

[Marcus Paul] Oh yeah, yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, Royal Easter, where did you grow up?

[Marcus Paul] Sydney’s West, the Luddenham Show, the Penrith Show. You know, they were wonderful.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, and so what we saw at Dalby, which is west of Toowoomba on the Darling Downs, beautiful Darling Downs, it’s definitely a rural town. And we saw one whole field dedicated to 400, more than 400 engines, old engines. Had to be more than 30 years old. Some of them are a 100 years old that were puttering along, and they set a record for having the most engines running concurrently in a small area. But could you imagine this? Hundred metres long, five lines of engines, all with the enthusiasts with them, tinkering them along. You know and these engines, as I said, had to be more than 30 years old. But they worked across our country. They were essential in farming industry. Many were designed and built in Australia, highly dependable, highly reliable. Some were built under licence from overseas countries. We make none of these engines now, none at all. Yet we have great people like Jack Brabham, for example. He’s the only person ever, to have been an owner of a Formula One team, a designer of a car, and the driver, the only one ever. And he won three world champions. He’ll never be repeated. We’ve got the talent in this country. We’ve just destroyed our capacity to be productive.

[Marcus Paul] Ah, gee. All right, Malcolm. Great to have you on the programme, mate. We’ll catch up again next week. Thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Marcus. Have a good one, mate. One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts. Marcus Paul in the Morning.

/by