Posts

Our Senate Inquiry into Military Medals

Those who serve Australia deserve to be recognised.

When it comes to Defence, there is nothing more important than the men and women who wear the uniform and put their lives on the line for Australia.

It’s a reality often forgotten when we hear defence spending argued as a percentage of GDP. Money is an indication of commitment – an important measure – although not the only one.

As a nation with a long and proud history of military defence, we should be extremely concerned about the human numbers which indicate Australia’s Defence Force is facing a critical staffing shortage and retention crisis.

Not only are young people choosing not to serve, those who do choose a career in the military are leaving prematurely.

Our personnel numbers in 2024 were found to be 7% below strength, with recruitment drives failing to attract enough new people to keep Australia safe. The situation is so dire that our Defence Chiefs have been recruiting foreign nationals to serve – a Band-Aid measure which has failed.

As serving numbers drop, the Top Brass have inflated to ‘record highs’. They are credentialled, well-paid compared to their American counterparts, and yet the system is collapsing beneath their leadership.

At fault is a broken awards system and two-tiered recognition structure.

This has led to a widespread morale problem that has taken root within the ADF over previous decades.

The people who serve our nation have been asking for help and been met with silence.

They want their achievements to reflect their service, those achievements to retain their meaning, and to have their medals protected from cancellation without proper oversight.

The fallout from the infamous Brereton Report, and fears that 3,000 Australian Defence Force personnel might have their service records unfairly tarnished, brought the long-simmering issue of ADF morale into the spotlight.

As a Senator, I found it disturbing how easily distinguished ADF personnel could be stripped of their awards and how difficult it was for these decisions to be reviewed in a fair and timely manner.

Sometimes it seemed as if they suffered the political fallout for other people’s errors while their superiors remained insulated from criticism.

Too often ADF personnel were left to rely on the intervention of the relevant minister.

Meanwhile, the head generals gave themselves medals – in my view illegally – for sitting in air-conditioning while soldiers serving in action were not properly recognised.

This is not the message we should be sending to recruits. It is a story of bureaucracy, not valour.

Seeing this two-tiered system entrenched in the military, One Nation initiated a Senate Inquiry into the military medal system – which has recently concluded.

Having been through this long process, it remains our firm belief that service medals and awards must represent genuine achievement, otherwise the act of recognition is diminished for the men and women who truly deserve the acknowledgment.

We want to see a functioning, fair, and transparent honours and awards system that recognises the sacrifices and achievements of ADF personnel regardless of their rank.

During the Inquiry, we saw evidence of widespread abuse of the system which gave weight to the claims of those ADF personnel who either left or felt abandoned by the system.

There were found to be systemic issues with the awarding of the Distinguished Service Cross and Distinguished Service Medal to those who failed to satisfy the ‘in action’ criteria.

There is a clear, perverse incentive for Senior Officers to seek out these awards.

These prestigious recognitions centred around ‘in action’ as a requirement, which has long been defined as ‘acts in the course of armed combat or actual operations against an enemy’.

As we have since discovered, ‘in action’ seems to be taken loosely, or not at all, by many Senior Officers awarded a Distinguished Service Cross. Some could only claim to have ‘travelled extensively within the area of operations under their command’.

When it comes to the Distinguished Service Decorations criteria, the ‘in action’ criteria was changed in 2011 to the lesser ‘warlike operations’.

Which we can all agree, is not keeping within the spirit of the recognition.

One Nation, along with veterans and ADF personnel, have reached the conclusion that there is a widespread failure in the culture of recognition, particularly as it relates to Senior Officers.

Considering this, One Nation submitted a list of recommendations to improve fairness and transparency. These include:

  • Medals given to the top brass should be reviewed from 1991-2012 for integrity assurance with a particular focus on the ‘in action’ criteria being met.
  • Return the proper definition of ‘in action’ to its original standing. The change was made without wide support and is not a trivial matter.
  • Establish separate medals for leaders who distinguish themselves in warlike situations separate to ‘in action’.
  • The Defence Minister and Chief of Defence should not be able to cancel other people’s awards and medals without a right of appeal.
  • Government must establish command responsibility as binding doctrine.

Our recommendations come as the Albanese government moves to rapidly increase defence spending, outlaying hundreds of billions for sophisticated equipment.

Whether this money is allocated to AUKUS submarines, Hunter Class Frigates, Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles, or F-35 fighter jets – there are real service men and women on the other side operating the technology. They need to believe that the Australian Defence Force values their services and honours it, when appropriate.

Without them, Australia has no defence.

We believe that low morale is playing a significant role in weakening our defence capabilities.

No one who signs up, voluntarily, to defend Australia should be left feeling this way.

It cannot continue that ADF personnel say they do not feel valued by the institution which asks that they lay down their lives in defence of Australia.

Ensuring a fair system of award recognition is one way to let ADF personnel know that their acts of service are valued by Australia, regardless of rank.

Our Senate Inquiry into military medals by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Those who serve Australia deserve to be recognised

Read on Substack
/1 Comment/by

Steroid Testing of ADF Athletes

,

Some constituents raised some concerns about the steroid testing of Australian Defence Force athletes.

At Senate Estimates I asked Sports Integrity Australia whether they have received any notifications from the ADF in relation to steroid testing.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions go to sports integrity, Mr Sharpe. Could you briefly explain the rules around testing for athletes, as in who is eligible and who is required? 

Mr Sharpe : They’re quite broad. Our focus is on international- and national-level athletes from a testing perspective. We can test lower, but our focus and our policy is that where there’s an absence of education at a lower level, in the first instance, we wouldn’t be testing unless there was specific intelligence that would suggest we need to take a facilitator or someone out of sport. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your focus is on international level? 

Mr Sharpe : And on a national level. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain why athletes that are tested are prohibited from private testing? 

Mr Sharpe : They’re not prohibited from private testing. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can they go and test themselves? 

Mr Sharpe : Absolutely. Sports do have illicit policies, where they all conduct testing around that, which is separate to our agencies. But athletes, if they felt they needed to, would not be prevented from doing that. 

Senator ROBERTS: What is the efficacy of hair follicle testing for steroids? 

Mr Sharpe : We don’t do hair follicle testing. 

Senator ROBERTS: Because it’s not efficacious? 

Mr Sharpe : We just don’t do it because we follow the world Anti-Doping Code and it’s not a part of the code. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the Defence Force exemption from their testing regimes for competitive athletes in the Australian Defence Force? 

Mr Sharpe : No, I’m not aware. 

Senator ROBERTS: Should Defence be making you aware of any suspicions of doping? 

Mr Sharpe : I think that’s a matter for Defence. We’d certainly be willing to work with Defence if it related to a sporting event that was under an anti-doping policy. 

Senator ROBERTS: I take it they have not made you aware of any of that. 

Mr Sharpe : No, they have not. 

Senator ROBERTS: How would you action it if they did make you aware? 

Mr Sharpe : It would depend on whether the sport is a registered sport in this country and under an anti-doping policy—whether they participate in those sports or not. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s the end of my questions. 

/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

Special Forces Veteran Slams Chief of Defence Force Failures

I had the privilege of reading a letter sent by a Special Forces Veteran into the HANSARD record.

He shockingly details the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) General Angus Campbell abandoning the soldiers that served under him. Due to the CDF’s successive failures and appalling state of Defence bureaucrats, the soldiers are abandoning him.

We need to make our Defence Force as lethal and full of warriors as possible, but that won’t happen with the current CDF at the helm.

Transcript

Tonight I’ll read a letter from a constituent, a special forces veteran who chose to leave the Australian Defence Force after seeing Defence leadership callously throwing soldiers under the bus. It’s a long letter, a clear and scathing indictment of Defence’s supposed leaders. Here’s the letter:  

Dear Senator Roberts 

On the 19th of November 2020 a certain number of SASR soldiers were accused of having a toxic culture with the release of the Brereton report.  

This was a sound bite Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, AO DSC, repeated to the world. He accused Australian special forces non-commissioned officers of attempting to fuse excellence with Ego, Elitism and Entitlement.  

The Brereton report, written by General Campbell’s subordinate, absolved successive defence force leaders of anything other than ‘moral responsibility’, including the CDF. 

It wasn’t written in the report, but the message was loud and clear: there was another “E” in the equation. That of Exemption, Exemption for defence force senior leaders.  

The Inspector General Australian Defence Force investigation and media campaign was clearly endorsed by ADF leadership.  

In contrast, we have seen the lower ranks of those who served Australia in the Special Operations Task Force/Group in Afghanistan systemically abused, disempowered, marginalised and their valuable service denigrated. 

Many of these men and women have since medically discharged due to poor mental health caused not only by aspects of their active service, but more damagingly, their treatment by defence and the media on returning home.  

Treatment akin to that of a bygone era.  

We have seen ADF leaders recuse themselves from command responsibility and the very laws and standards established after World War 2.  

The Yamashita standard saw the Allies demand a Japanese General be hung for crimes committed by his soldiers.  

Now, after losing our war, and in the hope of avoiding scrutiny from the International Criminal Court for their failures, it is OUR military leadership who demand their soldiers who fought under their command be punished while they refuse to accept anything other than meaningless ‘moral responsibility.  

During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the combined total cost to the Australian taxpayer was approximately $13.5 billion. 

During that same time frame Australian soldiers fought with substandard and rented ISR, Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance equipment.  

They had no integrated close air support and borrowed US helicopters.  

Both Government and Defence ‘procurement specialists’ wasted three times the cost of both wars on failed and failing procurements.  

Now, we see the failed MRH-90 Taipan helicopter procurement feature in the tragic loss of life, devastating defence families and the serving community.  

We have seen veterans abandoned by defence and given no choice but to defend themselves in court without financial, legal, moral, or any other form of support from the same leaders they once served. This situation demonstrates complete disregard for those who loyally fought the wars of our generation and of the families who supported them.  

This ongoing treatment by defence leadership is yet another failure in their duty of care to the people they proclaim to value. 

Leadership then took their disregard a step further giving tacit approval to journalists by failing to correct the lies and fabrications they published.  

We saw the CDF and his service chiefs demand that senators’ questions in relation to the failure of the MRH90 helicopter be considered and respectful due to the families impacted by loss.  

This is a stance in complete contradiction to his grandstanding on the release of the Brereton Report, an uncaring act ignorant of the thousands of families impacted, and without consideration of the accuracy of the unproven and untested allegations, or of jurisprudence. 

We saw a victim falsely labelled a perpetrator by the cold and dispassionate Royal Australian Airforce chief.  

When offered the chance to set right the incorrect and damaging slur, the chief instead doubled down on his untrue statement with impunity.  

This further damages all victims in defence, while simultaneously highlighting to Australia the class distinction between an out of touch but untouchable leadership, and those they supposedly lead.  

We have seen defence leadership use national security as an excuse to cover their lies, mistruths, and omissions.  

And we have seen how the same leaders hide behind the ‘in consideration of the impact on families’ excuse, selfishly treating grieving families as human shields to protect their reputations. 

These families are strong families, they have supported loved ones through their years of service to this country, they don’t need protection, they need the truth.  

And now, we have seen elected senators voicing the concerns of their constituents and veterans, be labelled as divisive and bullied by the leader of Australia’s Military.  

If a lower ranked service member had publicly acted in the same way the CDF did at Senate Estimates, they would likely be charged with prejudicial conduct. 

If the civilian overseers, the elected senators responsible for scrutinising defence force activities and spending, are not immune from the wrath of our Defence force leaders, is there anyone in Canberra able to hold them to account?  

People do not leave bad jobs; they leave bad bosses. Defence has been pushing woke agendas to appease minorities leading to so many poorly conceived and implemented reforms.  

Furthermore, due to the defence leadership’s damaging use of the media to denigrate its veterans whilst recusing themselves, they have sidelined and denigrated ADF’s best assets, its people, and they are leaving in droves. 

This devastating recruitment and retention crisis is weakening Australia’s defence capability and national security, the very thing our leaders say they are protecting.  

This exodus of people from the ADF creates a vacuum that will take years to replace. These men and women are patriots; they are not leaving defence due to the promise of better-paid jobs.  

They are leaving because they are not valued and because of the incompetence, failures, double standards, blame-shifting, and lack of support from defence leaders. 

What has been the leadership’s answer to the current recruitment and retention crisis?  

To appoint yet another general to investigate why those who did, and those who normally would serve our great nation, no longer wish to do so.  

It’s a weak, box-ticking exercise to avoid leadership accountability and fails to resolve the issues.  

To Defence leadership, I say, if your medals are so important to you, keep them, and take ours back; there are more pressing items on the agenda. 

Over two decades, incompetence in a Defence hierarchy more intent on accolades, awards, and power, has mismanaged Australia’s defence force into its weakest ever position, and done so at a time when the world is in its most volatile and dangerous state since World War 2.  

These leaders leave us poorly defended, and solely reliant on another nation with a dubious track record for supporting its allies in war.  

Those of us who have been to war, who have been ‘in action’, don’t relish another one, especially one fought at home, that require our children to fight.  

On releasing the IGADF Brereton report into war crimes allegations, Angus Campbell was reporting as saying, “We are a nation that stands up when something goes wrong and deals with it and that is what I intend to do.”  

Well, as a concerned special forces veteran and father of Australian sons, this is me standing up, hoping someone in government will deal with this crisis.  

Or am I right with the final E? Exemption: Are our Defence Force leaders truly exempt from their failures and above international and domestic laws? The sorely needed Royal Commission into veteran suicides is a direct reflection of the poor leadership that has mismanaged defence over decades. 

A Royal Commission into ADF leadership, specifically the failures in leadership during the Afghanistan war, and subsequent to it, is now imperative to ensure the same failures are not repeated. The Government fails the nation if it does not. 

Signed: A concerned father and ADF Veteran. 

Name and address supplied. 

Anyone who hears the letter I just read into the Senate Hansard record will understand why many soldiers, veterans and senators, including me, have called for the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, to be fired. There are too many examples of hypocrisy, failure and incompetence from Defence leadership to list them all in one letter or one speech. Get rid of every single general who isn’t completely focused on making sure our Defence Force is as capable and lethal as possible. The safety and sovereignty of the entire nation require it. 

The state of the Defence Force is the fault of many successive governments and shiny generals, yet the responsibility for the current state of Defence must lie with the current head of the organisation, and that is General Angus Campbell. The Defence Force is going backwards—literally, when it comes to headcount—and the Special Air Service Regiment is facing an unprecedented capability crisis. One Nation believes warriors should be welcome in our military. We don’t need to spend time making sure drones are gender neutral. How about we just buy enough drones to defend ourselves? Spend money on ammo for our defence personnel to train with, not more gender advisers. Give medals to the heroes who show bravery in combat, not the bureaucrats who sit in air conditioning and shine their arse for half the war. The safety and sovereignty of our entire nation require that our ADF, the Australian Defence Force, starting at the top, tell the truth and be held accountable. 

/1 Comment/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

Heads must roll in Defence leadership

Australia’s diggers are being let down by terrible leadership from bureaucrats, generals and Defence Ministers.

We want warriors in our Defence Force and it shouldn’t be any other way. If the Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell doesn’t understand that then he should resign.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak in support of Senator Lambie’s motion of urgency addressing the appalling state of leadership in the Australian Defence Force. It’s important to note that this motion isn’t about our soldiers, our sailors and our aviators. They are among the world’s best and are often the most motivated and disciplined men and women our country has produced. Yet politicians and the Australian Defence Force’s higher leadership have repeatedly let down our Defence Force’s amazing work. Time and time again the generals, the brass, have failed to demonstrate real leadership.

Our current Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, wears the Distinguished Service Cross medal. He was awarded this medal supposedly for his command of troops in Afghanistan. There are questions over whether General Campbell was awarded this medal illegally. The criteria used to be that the recipient had to be in action, meaning in direct contact with the enemy. General Campbell spent most of his time in command sitting in an air-conditioned office in Dubai, thousands of kilometres from the battlefield.

Even if his medal was validly given, General Campbell is trying to strip the very same medal from people who were under his command and for whose behaviour he is responsible. It is a frightening exercise in double standards when General Campbell is awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his command of the same people who he is now trying to strip it from for alleged wrongdoing.

Leadership means taking responsibility for everything under one’s command. This isn’t an opinion; the Yamashita standard enshrines it in international law. When the Japanese Imperial Army committed untold atrocities, it was the overall commander General Yamashita who was charged with the war crimes that happened under his watch. General Campbell alleges war crimes were committed, including during his time in command. He spits on the idea of command accountability with his actions. When I suggested to General Campbell at Senate estimates that handing back his medals would be the moral thing to do, he responded, ‘That’s very interesting, Senator’—contemptuous. For General Campbell to demonstrate leadership he would hand back his medals and resign today.

On General Campbell’s allegations of war crimes it’s important to note that, eight years after a discredited sociologist first levelled allegations, not a single criminal charge has produced a guilty verdict—not one. Instead of affording soldiers of our elite Special Air Service Regiment procedural fairness, General Campbell may as well have declared them guilty when, at a press conference, he announced the allegations and said sanctions would be applied—not a criminal court, a press conference. It seems General Campbell intends to add ‘judge, jury and executioner’ to his resume.

It’s acquisitions department, the Australian Defence Force’s higher leadership, washed its hands of accountability. Almost every Defence program has failed to meet budget, time or delivery goals. Billions upon billions of dollars are wasted every year in foreseeable project delays, poor project planning and badly defined deliverable goals. Yet everyone involved seems to still be getting promotions. Is the motto on the wall, for the higher brass, at defence headquarters ‘Failing upwards’?

General Campbell even endorsed findings in the Brereton report complaining of a ‘warrior culture in the SASR’. If you don’t want warriors in the most elite fighting unit in this country and among the best special forces units in the world, where the hell do you want them? These issues are the reasons why defence recruitment is in crisis. Good soldiers are leaving because of the double standards flowing down from the top. It’s absolutely demoralising. The entire top brass needs to face a reckoning, for the state of the Australian Defence Force, and I stand in support of Senator Lambie’s calls for exactly that. We get so many calls from veterans and current service men and women asking us to do exactly that.

We say to our enlisted defence personnel: Australians know the good work you do and the effort and dedication you put into training to defend our country. Your job is applying state sanctioned violence, and no-one should shy away from this fact. It is a very difficult job. One Nation supports you all, and we will do everything we can to call for your poor leaders to face accountability for their actions and inactions.

/6 Comments/by

Can we afford $220 billion Submarines right now? Department of Defence at Senate Estimates

, ,

CANCEL THE $220 BILLION SUBS CONTRACT

It is currently estimated that the Future Attack Submarines the government wants to buy will cost $220 billion including construction and ongoing service. We aren’t expecting to see the first one in the water until 2032 and the final one sometime in the 2040s.

They are outrageously expensive, will be obsolete by the time they hit the water and aren’t even nuclear powered. Don’t just take my word for it, almost every expert adviser and person outside the government has said they must be cancelled.

Transcript

[Chair]

As the call.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you Chair, thank you all for being here today. My first, the questions are about the Attack Submarines Contract. Given that some estimates of the final cost to Australia for this Attack Submarine fleet of 12 subs may run to more than $200 billion over the life of the subs. For example, the Managing SEA 1000 document is Australia’s Attack Class Submarines, February, 2020. Why is this considered good value for money in the face of wide criticism from reputable experts on the government appointed Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board, which included admirals and others. The board advised the government to consider terminating the contract with Builders Naval Group.

[Greg Sammut]

Greg Sammut, General Manager Submarines. Senator, the board didn’t recommend terminating the contract with Naval Group. They recommended that we make sure that we are managing our risks properly as we continue our work to get into contract with Naval Group and talked about the best alternative to a negotiated outcome when they made their recommendations. What actually occurred was, we reached a negotiated outcome with Naval Group. We entered into contract with them and as the auditor general concluded, we have established within the strategic partnering agreement. A fit for purpose strategic framework for meeting the government’s objectives for the future submarine programme.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. You raise the word risks and that report raised risks, that committee meeting. If the last sub will be delivered in the 2040s and the first delivery estimated to be in 2032, ’33, won’t these subs be obsolete by the time they’re ready for the water.

[Greg Sammut]

No Senator, they won’t be obsolete by the time they enter the water we’re designing these boats now to meet Navy’s capability requirements. Those requirements contemplate a submarine that has to operate within the timeframes of delivery. We’re also designing this submarine to have appropriate margins, such that through life new technologies as they sufficiently mature can be incorporated into the submarines to keep them regionally superior throughout their service life.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When the contract was first being considered, is it true that only eight submarines were to be built?

[Greg Sammut]

Not when the contract was being first considered I’ve said previously in Senate estimates that the competitive evaluation process that was initiated in February of 2015, which was established to pick an international partner used an assumption of eight submarines. But as we’ve also said previously to this committee, after the decision was made to commence the committee evaluation process there was a defence White Paper in which the government announced its policy to acquire 12 submarines.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the reason for the change? From eight to 12

[Greg Sammut]

There was a policy decision in the White Paper of 2016 to acquire 12 submarines that followed a process that was underway at that time, called a full structural review that accompanied the defence White Paper of 2016. And through that process, when options were considered for the structure of the defence force, 12 was the number that was decided by government.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The original cost quoted of around 25 billion was that for eight or 12?

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure what original cost you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m told that the original cost of the programme was expected to be around 25 billion.

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure where that information ever came from, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It was widely known that in the early stage of this project that the cost was estimated to be around 55 from memory for 12

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not aware of what you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the original cost of the programme? The very first cost when the contract was set.

[Greg Sammut]

When the contract was set, $50 billion constant, which today in outturn dollars is $88.5 billion that has not changed.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So the $200 billion that some people are estimating, reliable people.

[Greg Sammut]

I think people are endeavouring to estimate not only the acquisition costs but the through life sustainment costs, which will run out to an excessive 2080. And cost that also include I might add, not just material sustainment of the boats but expected costs of crewing, operations and fuel.

And infrastructure.

Infrastructures included in acquisition costs as well, Senator, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How will these subs be cutting edge when they use technology from the 20th century?

[Greg Sammut]

What technology are you referring to, Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts]

This technology of the subs comes from the 20th century.

[Greg Sammut]

Well, Senator, I’ll assume you’re referring to the battery technology that we’re using.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I am, ’cause the next question is will these subs be using lead acid or lithium composite battery bank? That’s one of the things, but the technology generally comes from the last century.

[Greg Sammut]

We are using proven technology in these submarines to meet the capability requirements of Navy. And I think that’s what we must understand in the first instance. We’re not making compromises to meeting capability requirements, by simply choosing technologies. We are also being very mindful of the risks that attend the use of new technologies in something as complex as a submarine. So if we were to take the battery as an example, yes, the first batch of submarines will be delivered or at least the first future submarine will be delivered with a lead acid battery. We need make that decision now because if we don’t make that now the boat’s design will not be completed. And if the boat’s design isn’t completed in sufficient time we won’t be able to commence building and deliver the boat by the early 2030s. What’s important to understand is that in choosing the battery technology that we’ve chosen we are still meeting Navy’s capability of requirements when it comes to parameters such as dive endurance, range and so forth. We will continue as we are currently doing now to look at new battery technologies. Indeed we have an established and funded science and technology programme that is looking into a number of battery chemistries, including lithium ion but there are other promising technologies out there such as nickel zinc. When these are sufficiently mature, And we agree that they can be safely incorporated into the submarine to meet the Seaworthiness requirements of Navy which go to the safety of our crews at sea as well as meeting those capability requirements or indeed expanding the capability of the boat because of what advantages that new technology might bring. We will have the option to incorporate that. Because as I said earlier, we are building a submarine with margins to be able to incorporate new technology into the future.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, how easily, these questions reflect concerns of our constituents. And they’re very concerned when we look at the government debt right now and what has happened last year, they’re very concerned at the amount of money that’s going towards these subs. And they’re very concerned about the value in particular. How easy will the submarines be located by potential enemies when they’re so large and powered by obsolete diesel engines that apparently are easily heard? I’m not a submariner, but that’s what I understand.

[Greg Sammut]

One of my first response would be that diesel engines aren’t obsolete. Diesel electric submarines throughout the world use diesel engines to generate electricity, to charge batteries, to run the submarine. Again back to the capability requirements of Navy to which we are designing this submarine, it contemplates the threats and the scenarios in which the submarines will be operating. And those requirements have been established to enable the submarine to operate in the environments in which it operates remaining undetected to achieve its mission.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Given the exponential rate of increase or improvement in technology throughout life. Is there any regular or systemic review of the original assumptions?

[Greg Sammut]

We always continue to look at new technologies and what they might bring, not only to the future submarine but the existing submarine capability we have today. And that’s a good example perhaps to use that for your constituents, to understand how we continuously look at the ability to upgrade existing platforms that were produced some time ago. And if you look at any Naval vessel, it generally has a long life. And you’re right Senator, of course technology does evolve over the life of ships or submarines which are typically in service for at least 30 years in many cases. Over that timeframe we have to have the ability in Australia to be able to not only maintain the systems as they’re delivered, but to update them to deal with obsolescence that might emerge as well as upgrade them to take advantage of those new technologies so that we can maintain a capability edge or regional superiority. We do that today with the Collins class, we’re upgrading the Sonar suite in the Collins class, we’re upgrading the communication systems in the Collins class. We continue to manage any obsolescence that may arise in the Collins class because it was designed back in the 1980s. And we have to make sure that it continues to perform well. Life of type extension for the Collins class looks at these very issues where we will look at updating the diesel engines in the boat as well as the main motor and power control and distribution systems in the first instance. So what I’m saying to you is that we don’t design a vessel, deliver it and expect that that’s the way it will remain throughout its service life. It will be updated. It will be upgraded to ensure that it remains a potent and viable capability for the defence of our nation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. And you mentioned the Collins class. So let’s go to that. Given the difficulties that have been reported about like for locating enough submariners to man the current Collins class submarines, what’s planned to identify and train enough submariners to man the Attack Class submarines, should they actually be built

[Greg Sammut]

I’ll hand that question to Chief of Navy whose his area of responsibility that falls under

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

Good afternoon Senator, Vice Admiral Michael Noonan, Chief of Navy, with respect to the workforce for our submarine force, we have a growth plan which will allow us to achieve the required manpower to man 12 submarines as the Attack Class come to service.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Can you tell us any particulars about that that would give us confidence without divulging anything secret?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

The submarine force has been enduring record growth over the last five years. I currently have over 800 submariners in the trained force which is an increase of almost 50% of where we were 10 years ago. And we have a separation rate from our submarine force at the moment, which is the lowest of any other trade within the Navy. I need to achieve a growth of approximately 50 submariners a year to achieve our target for the introduction of the cones. And we are well on track.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So could you just tell me the expansion, how much it expanded? Was it 50% since when?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

50% in the last 10 years.

[Malcolm Roberts]

10 years. Could we man all of the Collins class submarines 10 years ago?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

No, we could not.

[Malcolm Roberts]

My final three questions Chair. They’re brief ones, they’re to the minister because they’re matters of policy or opinion. Given minister that the prime minister has just said that the submarine contract will go ahead is this to win votes because of Australian-built content?

[Minister]

Absolutely not, Senator Roberts, as you know and as I think Mr. Sammut has indicated and has been discussed in this committee for some time both during my previous tenure and since. The Australian government and the Australian Defence Organisation, both the ADF and the Defence Organisation itself regard submarines as a vital element of our defence strategy essential to protecting those interests. And we will continue to stand behind the commitment that we have made the partnership that we are invested in and engaging in. We have, as you have noted in passing a very strong policy approach about maximising the Australian industry content, about building submarines here in Australia with Australian steel, with Australian workers. But that aside, Senator, we regard this as a vital element of our strategic approach.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Has the government given… I’ll leave that question. Can Australia afford this in the light of the COVID 19 restrictions from state and federal governments, that recovery will now take enormous effort from our country? Can we still afford it?

[Chair]

How many last questions do you have, Senator Roberts?

[Malcolm Roberts]

One.

[Minister]

Senator, my response to you would be how can we not afford to do it? We must do it in the interests of the factors I put forward to you in response to your previous question and in the context of a COVID-19 recovery, the the impact of the work that we are doing in defence industry and particularly in Naval ship building is absolutely vital in the Australian economy. So I would absolutely respond to you in the affirmative to say we can afford it and we will afford it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So given the risks with technology increasing and improving so much outside the area, as well as inside the area, given that and the cost, and the changing circumstances in Australia isn’t it time to face reality and cancel these particular submarines?

[Minister]

Senator, I don’t agree. And I think Mr. Sammut has done an excellent job of setting out the reasons why including at a highly technical level.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by