Right now, the top brass in the Defence Force is avoiding responsibility, and the Labor government is letting them get away with it. Why hold a Royal Commission into veteran suicide or an inquiry into honours and awards if the government is just going to ignore the findings?
One Nation proudly stands with Senator Jacqui Lambie’s urgent motion.
We are calling on the government to hold the top brass accountable; adhere to legal and moral obligations to our ADF members; and ensure no ADF member is denied legal protections or access to justice just because they are serving overseas.
It’s time to end sexual discrimination and ensure every man and woman in uniform is protected under the law.
It’s time to fix this problem.
— March | Senate Speech
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator Lambie for moving this motion. The Australian Defence Force, as Senator Paterson has just said, protects us and it relies upon its people to do so, and we need to protect the Australian Defence Force people.
One Nation supports getting this on the record and noted urgently—urgently! I agree with Senator Gallagher; this place is a shambles, and the Labor government is making it even worse. Labor is destroying formal motions. We saw yesterday a stunt persecuting and denying Pauline Hanson justice that was cooked up days in advance. It was in the media. So, yes, we agree with you; this place is a shambles. The top brass in the Defence Force is avoiding responsibility and that is what Senator Lambie is after here.
Why have a royal commission into veteran suicide, why have an inquiry into honours and awards and just ignore both of them—ignore everything—and just let the top brass run? We need to hold the top brass accountable.
As I read this motion, Senator Lambie is calling the government to immediately abandon this position, adhere to its legal and moral obligations to ADF members and ensure that no ADF members are denied legal protections or access to justice because they were serving outside of the Australia at the direction of the Commonwealth. She just wants women to be protected. She wants all people in the Defence Force to be protected. The key issue here is sexual discrimination and an answer from the government to fix this problem regardless of whether it goes to court.
A Comcare investigation alleged that the Department of Defence committed serious workplace health and safety breaches. Defence knew the “TopOwl” helmet displays could show incorrect altitudes yet overrode internal systems anyway, sending pilots into low-altitude, night-time conditions.
Why did the Commonwealth prosecutor decline to press charges? Surely they should release their legal reasoning to give the victims’ families closure.
Senator Farrell acknowledged the tragedy and confirmed that Comcare handed its investigation findings over to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. However, he declined to provide further details or release the prosecutor’s legal reasoning, stating that independent investigations by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Queensland Coroner are still active. The government maintains it is inappropriate to comment on or interfere with these ongoing processes.
September 2025 | Question Time
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Farrell. We remember Captain Daniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class Two Joseph Phillip Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. Minister, the Comcare investigation into the fatal Taipan Defence helicopter crash in the Whitsundays, released in response to my order for the production of documents, revealed the national health and safety investigator alleged serious breaches of workplace health and safety laws by the Department of Defence. There has been no explanation for why the Commonwealth prosecutor did not lay charges, despite these clear findings. Minister, given this new information, will the government release the Commonwealth prosecutor’s reasons for not pressing charges, despite the allegations from Comcare to give the families of the crash victims closure and ensure that these allegations are properly tested in court?
Senator Farrell: I thank the senator for his question. This issue obviously is an issue concerning the Attorney-General, but, as you have said, Senator, we do recognise and pay tribute to the fallen MRH-90 aircrew who were lost in Lindeman Island on 28 July 2023. As to the specifics of your question, Comcare is the independent federal work health and safety regulator responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act. In July 2023, Comcare began an investigation of potential work health and safety offences relating to the fatal crash which you referred to in your question. The investigation focused on the Department of Defence’s duty owed to workers under the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act. Comcare conducted a thorough investigation and have provided their findings to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. There are ongoing independent investigations on this matter by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Queensland coroner, who is also supported by the Queensland police. As these investigations are ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment on them at this stage.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the clarity of these Comcare documents provides a real justification to waive the immunity on legal advice and understand why this case was not progressed on behalf of the victims’ families. Do you accept there are genuine grounds to understand why? Will the government release the reasons why the prosecutor chose not to follow the advice Comcare provided?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his second supplementary question. I don’t believe the Attorney-General does believe that in these circumstances. There are certain relatively fundamental principles that apply in all these cases where further investigations are being undertaken. We feel great compassion for the families of the people who were lost in this terrible accident. There are investigations underway. I think the Senate ought to leave those investigations to the appropriate authorities to make a final determination of the issue. I think that’s the appropriate course of action in these circumstances.
Beyond simple funding gaps, the medical, psychiatric, and legal challenges confronting veterans reflect deep-seated systemic failures.
The government and “top brass” of Defence are failing to manage and “mend” those who have served.
Standards are ignored. The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash is a primary example where warnings were reportedly ignored, leading to fatalities.
There is a disconnect between the “top brass” and rank-and-file members. The government overriding the findings of the Senate inquiry into Defence honours and awards is evidence that the concerns of service members are being ignored.
The veteran community is feeling “lost and broken,” struggling with loneliness, anger, and vulnerability. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide provides a backdrop to this desperation.
The “shambles” within the ADF leadership threatens the security of all 27 million Australians. By betraying the “heart” of the ADF, the effectiveness of the entire force is compromised.
Reform is needed and includes: ➡️ Enforcing honesty and “fair dinkum” treatment of veterans. ➡️ Holding senior ADF personnel, government ministers, and bureaucrats accountable for their decisions. ➡️ Restoring the standards and values that protect the lives of service members.
These failings are killing people.
Senior levels of the Australian Defence Force must be held accountable.
And until this is addressed, this issue will never be fixed.
Transcript
I support Senator Lambie’s motion and thank her for it. This is urgent. This is a crisis. This is growing. I want to talk more broadly about how to properly fix the system, and I commend Senator Lambie and the others who’ve talked about the system. The government is not managing vets, and this has led me to support Senator Lambie. The situation is critical. It needs action, because the neglect is piling issues on issues on issues for ADF members and veterans, and for Australia. This reflects on Australia. The Romans said, ‘We send them, we bend them, but we don’t mend them!’ That could be said of the ADF. Men and women are getting desperate. They’re feeling pain, hurt, loneliness, anger, desperation and vulnerability. They’re feeling lost and broken. They’re very concerned about their mates. We have people coming to us almost daily with legal problems caused by Defence, with medical problems or with psychiatric health problems. These are serious issues. They simply need honesty, mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum.
These men and women have served our nation here and overseas. They deserve our support. What will it take? The government hasn’t cared. Although I commend Senator Chisholm for what he just read out, it needs to go far deeper. The government has made this an urgent issue. The findings of the recent Senate inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system were clear. The government came out and just did what the top brass wanted it to do— overrode the whole lot. It listened to people and then ignored them.
There were the Taipan deaths. After our warnings, after Senator Shoebridge’s warnings, after the previous crash— in which, fortunately, no-one died—the chopper was faulty. The chopper model was faulty. The heads-up display was faulty. ADF top brass ignored the standards and now they’re trying to hide it. I once listened to a very experienced senior ADF member who had top service in Vietnam and had risen to a very senior rank. He said that 70 per cent of the deaths of Australian soldiers in Vietnam were due to breaches of standards, which shows that Defence measures breaches of standards. Now, here we are with the Taipan chopper fatality, ignoring standards. The ADF senior brass is ignoring standards.
We’ve had a royal commission into veteran suicide. We’ve got the ABC, funded by taxpayers, defaming Heston Russell, who did a marvellous job in Afghanistan. When they were found guilty of defaming him, there was no apology. This man serves and then is targeted at home. Defence equipment purchases are hopeless, and people know it. What I’m saying is that this is systemic. It’s not just about dollars, Senator Chisholm—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Hodgins-May. It’s about accountability at the senior levels of the Australian Defence Force. Until that’s fixed, this will never be fixed.
This shambles is killing people. Vets simply want to be heard. They want their issues addressed, and they want senior ADF responsibilities to be fulfilled. There are 27 million Australians whose security depends on senior ADF personnel. That security is at risk because the key to our Australian Defence Force—the heart, the mateship, the truth—is being attacked and betrayed. Costs are going up; results are coming down. This needs to incorporate a systems approach including senior ADF personnel, who set the tone, and including government ministers and bureaucrats. It’s an enormous problem, with the security of 27 million Australians at risk.
During the February Senate Estimates, I asked questions of the ADF about the tragic case of LAC Andrew Armfield.
From what I’ve been told, the facts are damning:
Mandatory suicide management policies were ignored after his first attempt.
Evidence suggests FOI redactions were used to smear Andrew’s brother, a whistleblower, to protect the ADF’s reputation.
Senior leadership was briefed on “media risk” while claiming elsewhere they were unaware of the situation.
It’s the same old story: The top brass is more worried about bad PR than the lives of our sailors, soldiers, and aviators.
Mateship and trust are strategic assets, yet you can’t have either without the TRUTH.
The ADF leadership has taken my questions “on notice.” I’ll be holding them to it.
Our service members deserve justice, not excuses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard today that people are important, and that’s reassuring. My understanding is that in the ADF mateship and trust are of strategic importance. They’re strategically significant. Going to safety and trust, I’d like to get to questions that relate to the way that the ADF has mismanaged the suicide of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield and failed to provide him with the support he needed after his first suicide attempt in June 2011. Are you aware that the royal commission transcripts dated 6 March 2024 and a ministerial background brief from the Deputy Chief of Navy, Commodore Ray Leggett, to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022, copied to Vice Chief of Defence Force David Johnson and Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell, warned of negative media risk if Mr Armfield’s story became public?
Adm. Johnston: Of course it is very difficult for us to talk about the individual circumstances. As we have explained to you before, we can talk around the support that we are doing to improve suicide awareness, our proactive response to reducing the prevalence of it in the force. Mr Armfield’s circumstances were very much a part of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. For officials to talk on the particular nature of his circumstances, there is very limited that we can say without his authority to do so. If it is helpful for you to have officials come forward and just explain how we are responding to the types of circumstances that Mr Armfield experienced and what we are doing to improve our response to it, I would be very happy to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll point out that Mr John Armfield has been involved in developing these questions. We got the data from him. He’s happy for us to talk about it.
Adm. Johnston: That might be true of what he’s provided to you, but that’s not an authority that we have from him.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask again: are you aware that you were copied as Vice Chief of Defence Force on the royal commission transcripts?
Adm. Johnston: I am aware of Mr Armfield’s transcripts, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that ministerial brief, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by then Vice Chief of Defence Force, yourself, claiming you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation was incorrect as you had been copied in?
Adm. Johnston: Sorry? I’m just not clear on your question about which part you mean was incorrect.
Senator ROBERTS: The ministerial brief to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022. Given that brief, which you said you got, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by yourself claiming that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation?
Adm. Johnston: My comment to you was that I’m aware of the transcript of Mr Armfield’s evidence after the royal commission had occurred. I would have to go back to my own testimony of the evidence to be able to answer that question for you.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s claimed that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation, but you were aware.
Adm. Johnston: Mr Armfield appears directly prior to me appearing as a witness. I heard his evidence. I would have to check the circumstances of that question. I heard the evidence that Mr Armfield gave, because he appeared immediately prior to me on the morning that I appeared at the royal commission. If you could allow me to go back and clarify the question you’re asking to make sure I get the accurate response to it?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fair enough. At the time of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s first suicide attempt in June 2011, was DIGPRS 1626 a mandatory policy requiring a risk management team? Is it accepted that no risk management team and no crisis management plan were ever established by Dr Suresh Babu or Wing Commander Peter Davies?
Adm. Johnston: You’re asking me particulars of details of that set of circumstances. We would take them on notice and do our best to answer them for you.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your desire for accuracy. Do you accept that, by failing to comply with that mandatory policy, Defence removed structured oversight of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s care and therefore failed to discharge its duty of care regardless of treatment occurring in a civilian hospital?
Adm. Johnston: Again, I’m not in the position to answer the detail. I just don’t have sufficient knowledge of it. I would look at it, but I would restate the importance and the amount of work that we have done to address suicide within the Defence Force and that with veterans after. There are considerable initiatives, and we have learnt from each one of these tragic circumstances about how we need to change our policies, the awareness of our people and the proactive environment that we can provide in order to minimise the circumstances of suicide occurring. That was a tragic set of circumstances. We are doing our best to learn from them and to change the environment to prevent suicide occurring within the force.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a nice broad fluffy statement, and it’s honourable, but I’d like a specific answer to that question, if you could give it to me. I accept that you’re putting yourself in a difficult position if you just answer off the cuff, so we’d appreciate the answer on notice.
Adm. Johnston: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did Defence redact freedom of information material under sections 47E and 47F relating to statements by Flight Lieutenant Carlisle Miles, Commodore Fiona Southwood and Colonel Matthew Freeman when an FOI review later revealed those redactions concealed false and subjective statements portraying Petty Officer Armfield—that’s the deceased’s brother, and he’s also the complainant—as dishonest or mentally unstable? Some of those statements were emailed 11 times to 14 commissioned officers, thereby damaging his professional reputation and shaping a false narrative to protect Defence.
Adm. Johnston: I’m sorry. I don’t have that knowledge, but we will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s the brother.
Adm. Johnston: Sorry? What is the question within what you’ve just presented?
Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s Petty Officer Armfield.
Adm. Johnston: If your question is why did the Inspector-General of the ADF come to that conclusion, that is best, of course, presented to the inspector-general rather than to the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know if what he said was true and you’re aware of it?
Adm. Johnston: I would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What authority or qualification did Commodore Bannister rely upon to decide that Mr Armfield’s allegations of criminal conduct, supported by ADF legal advice and reviewed by senior external lawyers, were not referred to police or prosecutors?
Adm. Johnston: Again, I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Petty Officer Armfield reported alleged breaches of Commonwealth law on the advice of an ADF lawyer to Commodore Fiona Southwood, Warrant Officer Navy Andrew Bertoncin, Captain Anne Andrews, Chief of Navy Mark Hammond, IGADF and the Defence Force Ombudsman. All were provided the evidence. Process and policy was followed. If each officer deflected or claimed it was not their remit, who exactly does an enlisted sailor, soldier or air crew report allegations of criminal conduct to within the ADF?
Adm. Johnston: That is one of the areas where we have extensively sought to enhance the options that are available to individuals of how they report. Some of them, as you were referring to, would be up through their leadership chain. We have ensured there are independent options that are outside of an individual’s unit or command structure so that in those circumstances where they feel more comfortable reporting externally they have multiple options, whether it is to military police or the inspector-general of the ADF. We now have a centralised reporting mechanism where reporting can be made that is separate to the command chains. We have ensured there are multiple pathways available to people when either they believe that reporting that they may have made to their leadership is not being acted on or where they are uncomfortable with reporting in that environment and they wish to be able to report externally to it.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’m hearing—correct me if I’m wrong—is that mandatory defence suicide management policy was not followed, that oversight failed and you’ve made changes since. Serious concerns raised by Petty Officer John Armfield, the deceased’s brother, were known to senior Defence leadership and possibly yourself while being denied under oath elsewhere; is that correct?
Adm. Johnston: That’s not what I said, with respect.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t saying what you said—what I’ve heard, what I’ve interpreted.
Adm. Johnston: No, I didn’t comment on the individual circumstances of the case but did explain what we had done. If your question is around that set of circumstances, I will need to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could take it on notice, please. I accept your correction there. We’ve heard that reputationally damaging material was withheld under freedom of information, that flawed and unqualified investigations occurred and that allegations of possible criminal conduct were not referred despite legal advice; is that correct?
Adm. Johnston: Again, I do not have that detail. I would have to come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Notably, the only person referred to law enforcement in this matter was the whistleblower himself, who was acting on the advice of an ADF lawyer, and none of the officers whose conduct is now in question. Could you confirm or correct that, please?
Adm. Johnston: I would have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see this as support for a whistleblower. It’s avoidance. It goes to the heart of institutional integrity and accountability. I look forward to your answers to questions on notice, because the public deserve the truth. Your officers and your enlisted people deserve the truth—Army, Navy, Air Force—and they deserve justice. Anything less confirms that protecting the institution still matters more than protecting those who serve it. That’s what I’ve seen, being blunt, for the last few years in Senate estimates. The senior brass of the ADF is not standing up and providing leadership.
Adm. Johnston: I hope you have seen significant evidence that, as we have already canvassed this morning, people are critical to our capability, and that the work we are doing through implementing the royal commission recommendations within Defence is a significant priority for us. The structure of support and the environment and culture that we are seeking to build, both within the Defence Force and more broadly across Defence, is highly supportive of our people. There are circumstances—and the royal commission was clear—where we have let people down, and we have acknowledged that. We have put significant effort and priority around doing everything that we can to change those circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: I look at the report from the inquiry into honours and awards. There was a clear recommendation that Defence put in place a more objective process, and that was nixed by the government. I still don’t see that desire for accountability and truth at the top of the Australian Defence Force.
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
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.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/LLGnRHCzGVo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-23 15:49:262023-11-23 15:49:30Australian Defence Force – Less Money on Gender Advisers, More on Ammo!
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.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2vJqvwZZIXM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-07-07 16:00:232023-08-24 15:50:32Does the ADF really think electric vehicles can defend our nation?
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/FnLVKAZRT5A/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-20 10:28:462023-06-20 10:44:02Heads must roll in Defence leadership
