Posts

Fatal Army Rollover: Was the Vehicle Defective?

,

In this session, I raised several concerns regarding the heavy vehicle involved in the 2021 rollover near Townsville, which killed Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne.

I asked whether the 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle had entered service overweight, causing the axles to sit on the bump stops, thereby restricting axle movement and reducing roadholding. I also noted that the tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to operate at higher loads and pressures.

Furthermore, I stated that there was no evidence the antilock braking and stability systems had been calibrated for the addition of the fifth axle, the higher tyre pressures, or unique Australian road conditions. Finally, I pointed out that the operator manual, which was compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions regarding safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and entirely omitted recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads.

Defence officials (including Ms. Quinn and Ms. Kuczma) noted that standard contracts include “fitness-for-purpose” and risk-mitigation clauses. While Defence can theoretically choose to accept deviations in specifications under tight timelines, the DDA will maintain independent authority and accountability to manage contracts, enforce compliance, and withhold payments or suspend programs if requirements or safety standards are not met.

In response to my concern that the fatal vehicle’s flaws have still not been remedied, Defence Secretary Ms. Quinn rejected that the department is not focused on safety. She emphasised that Defence takes loss of life very seriously and continually adapts maintenance, acquisition, and operational processes based on new information.

I’ll be watching for the release of the report from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, officers, for appearing again tonight. My question is to the Chief of the Defence Force. On 30 August 2021, a 45M vehicle occupied by Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne failed to take a bend on Dotswood Road near Townsville, rolled and killed both occupants. ‘On 29 August 2025, an investigation was opened into the contributing factors in the rollover’—this is a quote—’that caused the deaths of Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Allan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Anthony Payne and was due to report by 4 March 2026.’ Has that investigation been completed?  

Adm. Johnston: I’ve just been joined by the Chief of Army, who may assist me with those answers. 

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can confirm that the Defence investigation has been completed and the final report was submitted to Comcare. That investigation was led by the land accident investigation team. That matter is now with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available to me during the period of litigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, did you say ‘not available’?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: They’ve been referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available for dissemination during the litigation that is currently ongoing.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the outcomes of the investigation that you can share with us?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m not in a position to share those outcomes with you while they’re subject to litigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm my understanding of these vehicles? The 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle entered service overweight, resulting in the axles sitting on the bump stops. This restricted axle movement and reduced roadholding. Is that correct?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: The tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to run at higher loads and pressures. Is that correct?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: There was no evidence of the calibration of the antilock braking stability systems for the addition of the fifth axle, higher tire pressures and unique Australian road conditions. The operator manual had been compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions for safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and did not include recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads. Could you take that on notice, please.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: You’re effectively making a series of assertions that may or may not be included as part of the investigation that was undertaken and is currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’ve been advised—some of the design failures or flaws in the vehicle.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Is that a question or a statement?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm that?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: As I’ve just advised, the investigation is referred to and currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can speak to a whole range of work that we’ve done. We have what you might describe as a generative safety culture, which is modelled on the way that airworthiness and air safety are managed. That is a proactive culture of reporting and continual improvement. In terms of the detail as to some of the things that we have done, I’ll provide some of the outcomes and then I might throw to my colleague Major General Vagg to provide some more. First, the application of data and analytics—that is, to have systems on the vehicle that are able to provide us with both retrospective and predictive analysis as to driving habits, and, therefore, help us understand the risks. Second, we’ve undertaken a review of the training that we provide for soldiers and other members of the ADF to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that we apply what we have learned from vehicle incidents and accidents. As you might appreciate, we have some soldiers who join the army who may not have even a civilian drivers licence. The kinds of conditions that we need to operate vehicles in, include not only the operation of the vehicle but also its tactical employment, whether that’s by day or night, on formed roads or cross country, in any kind of season, weather or terrain. We’re continually looking to update the way in which we train people to ensure that they can operate safely. In the introduction to service, and even before that, is the selection, testing and validation of any major system vehicle or weapon to ensure that it can be operated safely and that we have properly characterised the risks that may accrue to our people, and that we have either procedural, technical or equipment based mitigations or ways of reducing the risk to our people.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of a man called W. Edwards Deming?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have.  

Senator ROBERTS: You would know, then, that he led the turnaround of the Japanese producing crap to producing the best products in the world.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m generally aware of what Mr Deming did.  

Senator ROBERTS: He said that as much as people in management like to blame or inherently try to blame people for their problems, 95 per cent of the problem is the system, which only the manager can fix. What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have a couple of points before I’ll hand over to my colleague. Firstly, I’m accountable for everything that happens in the Army and the safety and wellbeing of all our people. Secondly, we operate a whole range of different systems, and in every case we seek to ensure that our people are systemically supported. We have a multifaceted approach to ensuring that equipment is safe, whether it’s technical assessments, predictive analysis, the way in which we train our people, or the assurance of the safety, the maintenance and the supply chain systems. It’s a holistic approach to assuring capability, assuring that those capabilities are fit for purpose, assuring that they are safe for our people to use, and assuring that our people are trained, educated and experienced to ensure that risks are managed so far as is reasonably practical.  

Major Gen. Vagg: I’ll reinforce what the Chief said. He is the land worthiness authority. Land worthiness is a system of checks that looks at current, in-service capabilities and also future-looking capabilities that we’re going to introduce into service. We’ve been developing that system over several years now. It had an interim operating capability in March 2020, and we’re on track to achieve a final operating capability in December of this year. That process is backed by a series of assessment tools, such as data trend analysis, that identify high-risk capabilities but also new capabilities, and we form an independent board which interviews users—from soldiers to managers, the procurement agency and other assurance agencies—and validates that the capability is fit to do what we’ve acquired it to do and that it’s fit and safe to operate, as the chief discussed. That board is made up of a series of retired one-star and two-star officers from across the services who have no direct linkage to the capabilities. They have no independent equities or personal equities to that capability. They’ll provide independent advice to the landworthiness authority and a series of recommendations. Those recommendations are then heard through the army operating system and implemented through our capability development and capability management processes.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question is for the deputy secretary of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Chris Deeble, or Nadine Williams or both.  

Ms Quinn: There are two different activities. There’s the capability acquisition group, for which we have a witness, and then there is the whole-of-government review of the defence delivery mechanism. So, depending on where your questions go, we may have different witnesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. There’s been much discussion and evidence provided to me and the parliament of the knowing approval of defective capability leading to injuries and fatalities. What does the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group do?  

Ms Kuczma: I think the question is quite broad. Our job is to acquire capability that is fit for its intended purpose and deliver that to the service that requires it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s pretty succinct.  

Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts—sorry to interrupt. I know and recognise your advocacy for the safety of our people. If you do have evidence that suggests that we have not treated safety in the introduction of equipment into service, I would welcome that being provided through our minister so that we can both review that material and come back to you with insights that answer those areas of concern that you have identified.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What actions have been taken in the design of the Defence Delivery Agency to ensure that non-compliant capability is not accepted for service?  

Ms Quinn: I’m happy to give a high-level answer. There has been an ongoing review of the acquisition system within the Department of Defence that goes across all phases of the acquisition program, from defining capability to acquiring and sustaining it, and the feedback loops throughout that whole system. In that process, there’s been an identification of some improvements we can make—some structural, some behavioural and some about being clearer on our accountabilities. So they do fall into different categories. One is just being very clear about the accountability for the different elements of those phases of any capability acquisition, development and sustainment. The second is to improve the professionalism of the staff at all three stages of that process. That includes having a specialised workforce, particularly through the Defence Delivery Agency—I keep using the acronym DDA. That’s about professionalising the workforce, working with other elements of the Defence establishment, including industry in particular, to be able to ensure that we can improve the acquisition. Safety, of course, is one of the elements of the process. I’ll pass to Nadine Williams if she’s got anything to add.  

Ms Williams: I wouldn’t add much to that. As the secretary has said, the design of the Defence Delivery Agency has considered the matters that she’s raised. We’re going through quite an extensive process of looking at how the Defence Delivery Agency is constructed, how professionalism might be better articulated through that construct and how accountabilities will ensure that there are really clear responsibilities for all elements of acquisition as it’s currently articulated.  

Ms Quinn: The concept of contestability in decision-making has been a theme as well. One reason to be very clear about the stages of the process is to ensure there’s very good contestability at the different stages, so that it’s a multidisciplinary view of capability development, acquisition and sustainment. Having more voices, but with clear accountability, will improve the delivery system overall.  

Senator ROBERTS: The current contracts for defence procurement include clauses that say that Defence does not pay any additional cost for a non-compliant capability in the supplier’s product.  

Ms Quinn: I think it would be hard to generalise across all the different types of contracts that we have, because there are a great deal of different contracts. We look at value for money, operational capability and risk sharing. Value for money also includes ensuring that, if faulty products are provided, there’s recourse for such an outcome. So our contract management would include risk mitigation activities. I’ll just see whether Ms Kuczma wants to say—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. By ‘risk mitigation’, you mean you’ll accept the vehicle or the piece of hardware and make a risk assessment as to how to use it without fixing it?  

Ms Quinn: We certainly do that, but also, if we’d specified a certain capability—and the contract was clear on that—and we received a capability that did not meet the specifications, then there would be avenues in the contract to rectify such a situation.  

Ms Kuczma: In general terms, we have a contracting suite that includes fitness-for-purpose clauses, which look at the outcome that’s required under the contracts. Generally they exist in our contracting templates to ensure that we can have recourse should those deliveries not meet our expectations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can they be bypassed if there’s a rush?  

Ms Kuczma: We have the ability to accept supplies and work through deviations, or things that don’t meet the requirements, should we choose. But our purpose is: fitness for purpose, receive what’s required contractually and deliver.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Defence Delivery Agency have the authority to stop delivery, suspend programs and withhold payment where capability does not meet contract regulation or legislation?  

Ms Quinn: It is the intention that the delivery agency will have independent accountability and authority for contracts and manage those contracts in the interests of Defence, in terms of delivering the capability we need.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just talked in terms of future tense.  

Ms Quinn: Existing contracts will be novated to the delivery agency, as appropriate, so existing contracts will also have that ability—as is the case now in the Department of Defence. There will be no step back from the ability to manage delivery or to meet specifications, including safety concerns.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand from Lieutenant General Stuart that there’s no comment yet on the reports of the fatal accident, but it would seem to be—I may be wrong here—another example of failure in the military procurement process, as it appears that recent inspections of the vehicles show that the problems have still not been remedied, placing drivers and passengers of these vehicles at risk of death. Why?  

Ms Quinn: To the first part of that question, what I heard in evidence was that the investigation has been provided to the public prosecution. It’s not available to the public, but there’s certainly a process going through to look at the investigation and see whether there are next steps that need to be taken. We also heard about the implementation of a lessons- time. So the characterisation that the department isn’t focused on it, or the Army is not focused on it, I wouldn’t accept. In high-risk situations, with the activity that’s undertaken across the Defence enterprise, there is the possibility for loss of life. The department and the services take that very seriously and focus on ensuring that, if something does happen, lessons are learnt, processes are put in place and improvements are made, and that includes into the development of capability, in terms of the acquisition and sustainment of capability—because some things are to do with maintenance—and the rectification of problems. As a layperson prior to joining this department—there have been instances of things retired for a whole set of reasons. The system does respond to new information to ensure the safety of serving men and women.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC Display Remains Untouched

,

After everything that’s unfolded around Ben Roberts-Smith, it was refreshing to hear the War Memorial confirm his Victoria Cross display remains untouched, his plaque updated only with factual context, and that the presumption of innocence still applies.

That principle isn’t optional – it’s the foundation of justice.

Transcipt

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Anderson. Senator Roberts, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here and thank you for such an uplifting opening statement. That’s wonderful that you’re celebrating that. My questions are fairly brief. Mr Anderson, can I confirm you have left the Ben Roberts-Smith VC display in the Hall of Valour in the same condition it was before his arrest while updating his plaque to include the passage: In April 2026, Roberts-Smith was charged with five counts of the war crime of murder. The legal process is ongoing.  

Mr Anderson: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I confirm that on 10 April 2026, in a media conference at the Australian War Memorial, you made the following statement: The most important thing that all of us can do now is allow justice to take its course; to start with the presumption of innocence.  

Mr Anderson: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the presumption of innocence still the overarching principle guiding the Australian War Memorial in the continued display of Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC exhibit in the Hall of Valour?  

Mr Anderson: I think the overriding principle is one of fact. He’s in the Hall of Valour because of his actions in Tizak on 10 June 2011. Those are the circumstances that we speak to in the Hall of Valour. We’ve updated, as we always do, the panel. Since 2023, we’ve been updating the interpretive panel with the facts as they become known.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s almost as uplifting to me, hearing that you believe in fact and make decisions based on data and fact, as your opening statement. That’s wonderful. Final question—I want to thank you, Mr Anderson, for reminding Australia that Ben Roberts-Smith has a presumption of innocence and for treating his service with the respect it deserves. I have nothing further, Chair. Thank you.  

CHAIR: That is very efficient of you, Senator; thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Defending Those Who Defend Us

,

In November, the government officially admitted defeat. The “horrific” Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal) Bill has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper – a win for every member of our Army, Navy and Air Force.

This all started with a One Nation motion to inquire into the honours and awards system. Our veterans stood up, presented the facts and spoke with such strength that the “top brass” could no longer turn a deaf ear. It is a credit to our country that those who defended us were willing to stand up once again to protect the morale and mateship of our ADF.

One Nation will always hold the senior brass accountable. We will not let them kill the spirit of our forces or compromise Australia’s security.

To our veterans and currently serving members: You won. We are proud of you and we will always put Australia first.

Transcript

Our veterans won. Our Australian Defence Force members won—people in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. The government admits defeat on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill, which has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper. That’s what this motion’s about. This all started with a One Nation motion that I moved in the Senate to inquire into the honours and awards system. 

We supported the veterans who spoke so strongly and so well at the inquiry. They’re a credit to our country not only for their service but for the way they stood up and explained their case. They earned my admiration yet again. They earned my respect yet again. They based their submissions and their witness statements on data. They gave us hard, concrete examples. Then the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal spoke in the inquiry. They spoke clearly, strongly and with strong evidence. Then Defence ignored it, and the government ignored it. You turned a deaf ear to it. I want to thank the veterans again for their service and for standing up. I bet you never thought you’d have to stand up in your own country that you defended, but that’s what you’ve done. Thank you so much for that. 

With our political support, the veterans and the current serving members won. The veterans won, and I thank the Senate for that. I thank all the members of the Senate who backed us on this from the start. We are with you, veterans and current ADF members. We will continue to hold the Defence senior brass accountable and to stop the Defence senior brass from killing morale and killing the key to our defence forces that is our mateship. The Defence top brass and the government are killing our defence strength. 

Australia’s security is One Nation’s top priority. This amendment bill has to be discharged to maintain the morale of our gallant armed forces. That means supporting our veterans and currently serving Australian soldiers in all the defence forces. We will continue to support you. 

One Nation supports this motion to discharge this horrific bill from the Notice Paper. Veterans have won and currently enlisted Australian Defence Force members have won. I want to make it very clear: One Nation is proud to serve our veterans and Australian Defence Force members. One Nation will continue to put Australia first. 

/by

Air Force vs. Civil Careers

,

I questioned the Defence Department about some serious allegations regarding a “protection racket” between the Air Force and major airlines like Qantas and Virgin.

I’ve seen internal emails suggesting the Air Force has been whispering in the ears of HR departments to delay start dates for pilots who are trying to transition to civilian careers.

It’s absolutely unacceptable to place invisible barriers in front of veterans who have served their country and just want to provide for their families.

While the Air Marshal denied any wrongdoing and insisted retention rates are “healthy,” I’ve pushed for a lot more detail. They’ve taken my questions on notice, so I’m currently waiting on the answers.

We need full transparency on these backroom deals to ensure our pilots aren’t being held captive by their own employer.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll move on to Qantas’s and Virgin’s interference. There are significant allegations that the Air Force is deliberately colluding with Virgin and Qantas to try and force, or pressure, those airlines to delay starting dates for former Air Force pilots, to keep them locked in a job in the Air Force that they don’t want to be in anymore. After serving our country, pilots shouldn’t be subjected to invisible barriers that stop them from getting a job in the civilian world. In late 2017, the director of personnel for the Air Force opened a line with Qantas ‘to establish a working relationship at the HR recruitment level’ and to discuss ‘recruitment, retention and leave without pay’. I’ve got an excerpt from a freedom-of-information request. It’s an email from Mitchell Beck, squadron leader air operations 1, director of personnel for the Air Force. It was sent on 22 January 2018, and the subject is ‘RAAF Virgin meeting 18 January 2018’. In that it is confirmed: ‘We, the Air Force, discuss methods of delayed start dates for RAAF pilots, such as when the member is leaving from a critical job. Virgin may be receptive to a delayed start of six to 12 months.’ That is the Air Force seeking to coerce airlines into arbitrarily delaying someone starting a new job for up to a year because the Air Force wants to keep the pilot in a job they didn’t want to be in. How can you justify taking away service members’ ability to earn a living and feed their family in the civilian workforce for an entire year?  

Senator McAllister: Chair, I think officials will be in a position to provide some advice to the senator about the broad policy position. It is very difficult for officials to respond to the quotes that have been provided by Senator Roberts without seeing them or understanding their provenance. I wonder if committee members might consider providing copies of materials they rely on to form questions, because it is challenging for officials to respond if they don’t have them in front of them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it boils down to—  

CHAIR: Do you have a copy for the witnesses?  

Senator ROBERTS: I haven’t got it with me.  

CHAIR: I’m also mindful of time. Have you got a few more questions on this issue?  

Senator ROBERTS: Very short. Is the Air Force working with Qantas and Virgin to delay the transition out of the Air Force for their pilots?  

Air Marshal Chappell: We’re not working with airlines to delay anyone’s careers. I would have to understand the emails you’re referring to from 2018 in significantly more detail in order to give you an answer, given all of the factors that are involved in career management, initial obligations of air crew and many others. Can I take it on notice and, if possible, understand or get copies of the emails you’re referring to so I can best respond to your questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: I will undertake to get the FOI quotes. If you can take it on notice, I would like to know the formal and informal arrangements between the Air Force and Qantas or Virgin.  

Air Marshal Chappell: Thanks, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Also can you table any MOUs, emails, minutes and briefings in relation to these meetings from the past three years.  

Adm. Johnston: We’ll take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Were any names or any lists of serving or separating pilots shared with the airlines?  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the package on notice.  

Adm. Johnston: We just don’t have that information.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. You could take on notice under what privacy authority those names were given, and whether any contact influenced hiring decisions or start dates.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the questions on notice without necessarily accepting any of the assertions in your questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Fine. How many cases by year since 2017 involved Air Force contacting an airline about a pilot’s application, start date or employment status, and what were the outcomes? If you could take that on notice.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What conflict-of-interest and post-separation controls apply to personnel staff liaising with airlines? You can take that on notice. Does Defence accept that such liaison without transparent policy and consent risks a perception of covert influence over civilian hiring to manage retention? Why did you do it? It seems to be a bandaid situation.  

Adm. Johnston: We will take all of those on notice. We need to get the details of what you have in front of you to make sure we answer them reasonably.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re being hit with excessive retirements from the Australian defence forces across the board. We know that. We are wondering if this is just a bandaid solution.  

Adm. Johnston: Our separation rates are well below average, rather than elevated, at the moment.  

Air Marshal Chappell: Over the last 12 months to the end of June, the financial year, Air Force grew by 824 personnel.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am pleased to hear that at last.  

Air Marshal Chappell: The evidence a little earlier would have illuminated the broader Defence story, which is very similar. Air Force is now above 16,000 personnel. We are continuing to grow, and separation rates are continuing to fall and stabilise at very healthy levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: Please provide on notice a full briefing in relation to the nature of the relationship between the personnel division and the airlines, how this relates to separating pilots, and under what authority Air Force is seeking—if you are seeking—to interfere with the post-separation employment of pilots.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take those on notice without accepting any of your assertions.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I said. None of this should be happening. In the wake of the royal commission, I think you should be stopping any conversations with the airlines that interfere with employment of pilots who separate. I would like you to comment on that.  

Senator McAllister: That’s not really a question, Senator. I think it commences with the assertion that something is happening. Officials have, a few times now, asked you for the opportunity to consider the materials you are relying upon before providing a response.  

Senator ROBERTS: And I said I would get it.  

CHAIR: That’s been taken on notice. Thank you very much

/by

Mandates Must Go for Defence Service

,

I questioned the Department of Defence regarding their ongoing COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Other major institutions, like the Federal Police, have dropped these requirements, acknowledging that the evidence on safety and efficacy has shifted significantly.

While the Surgeon General tried to frame these injections as “recommended” not “mandatory” for general staff, the reality is that vaccine mandates are still hanging over the heads of our defence members.I don’t care where a soldier is stationed in the world; if a treatment isn’t proven safe or effective, our defence personnel shouldn’t be forced to take it just to keep their jobs.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move to vaccine mandates. The Australian Federal Police and other major Commonwealth institutions have removed their mandates for COVID-19 injections on the basis that resulting major health problems from the injections contrasted with very few benefits from the injections, which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective. Does the Department of Defence still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?  

Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts, the Surgeon General will come to the table to talk through our vaccine approach. While the Surgeon General is getting to her notes, Senator Roberts, as you would appreciate, the employment basis for the Australian Federal Police is largely domestic and delivered in a very different health environment to that which the ADF often finds itself, particularly when we are overseas or operating in very remote or austere occasions. So the circumstances of what law enforcement agencies might do or those agencies based domestically in Australia might do are not equivalent to the employment circumstances our people are often in.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, Admiral Johnston. As I said in the last phrase of my concluding sentence, these are injections ‘which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective’. I don’t care where they are on the planet. They’re neither safe or effective, and that’s now accepted.  

Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects with respect to vaccinations, and I think your question is specifically around the COVID vaccine?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: Defence routinely vaccinates our personnel both on entry and annually for certain vaccines, and then there are also operational requirements for vaccination that might be specified on an operational health support order. With respect to the COVID vaccine, on entry we follow the national advice, from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, around recommendations for vaccines. Defence’s approach has changed over time as those recommendations have changed. The COVID vaccine is safe and effective, but the need for vaccination has changed as the virus has changed, as the prevalence of the virus in our community has changed and as the population’s immunity has changed as they’ve either had COVID or received vaccines. We follow the current recommendations, which I could describe: primary course is still recommended, but an annual booster is recommended for certain populations at risk or for people who, on discussion with their own treating clinician, would like to protect themselves from the virus that year.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean it’s voluntary?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: It is recommended, but it’s not mandatory. That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve ended the mandates  

Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects, as I said: on entry and routinely. On operations, there has been an order for vaccination because, as you can appreciate, when personnel go on deployment they are often living together in close quarters and there are different viruses circulating depending on where an operation occurs. The risks of people becoming unwell are much greater, both for themselves and for their mates. But, having said that, with the shift in the virus, Joint Health Command, my team, is consulting with the service chiefs to consider how they feel about the removal of that mandate and about looking at operations on a case-by-case basis—so, should there be a risk, considering what vaccinations may be warranted then. That work’s currently underway.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the risks? Whose medical advice do you take?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: ATAGI’s—the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. We follow their advice on all vaccinations and then consider our own needs for vaccination.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever go against ATAGI?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: No—well, it depends on what you mean ‘against’. We may go beyond. ATAGI don’t just look at safety and efficacy; they look at the cost to the system. For those vaccines that are recommended, for instance, on the National Immunisation Program, we may provide more routinely in Defence for our personnel because, again, of those operational and other aspects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that there are significant risks to healthy young people and that many other Commonwealth entities, including the Australian Federal Police, have now revoked their vaccine mandates?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: Nearly all states and territories and organisations have revoked mandates. That’s not all on safety; it’s on need as well. All vaccines do have an adverse-effect profile, and part of vaccination is the clinician understanding that profile and informing each individual, case by case, of what that is. The balance of benefits versus risk is considered always in vaccination. As far as COVID goes, the recommendations provided are that, on balance, the benefits of vaccinating people at risk and others are considered to outweigh what is a small incidence of adverse side effects. 

/2 Comments/by

Stop the Boats’ Rental

,

Why on earth are we leasing Navy patrol boats from the National Australia Bank?

It’s a strange arrangement – handing over $63 million to one of the “Big Four” to rent vessels like the Cape Inscription.

When I asked for the logic behind this, or even the basic cost of the lease extensions, the answers were frustratingly thin. No one in the room could tell me what it would cost to buy these ships back, or even how much total taxpayer money has been paid to the NAB so far.

This feels like a stopgap measure that has turned into a more permanent, expensive one, and I intend to find out exactly who is profiting from it.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. Australian Defence vessels Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy were reportedly being leased from the National Australia Bank for three years from 2017 for $63 million. Why did the Defence Force ever lease a Navy ship from the NAB, one of Australia’s big four banks?  

Adm. Johnston: The Chief of Navy will come to the table. We will be able to explain it in the terms of what the circumstances were at the time, particularly a transition plan, as it was, to the offshore patrol vessels, and where we are now.  

Vice Adm. Hammond: As CDF just intimated, there was a patrol boat transition plan which involved Armidale class and enhanced Cape class and Arafura. At that time the intent was to transition to 12 Arafura class offshore patrol vessels. As we’ve gone through the Defence Strategic Review and then the surface combatant review, that plan has changed. The E-Cape has now become the program of record, for the Australian Defence Force and Border Force, for patrol boat capability. We had two Cape class patrol vessels that we were leasing as a stopgap capability. Now that the Evolved Cape class program is the program of record, that program has changed. The initial basis was around a decision between the cost of ownership for an outright purchase and a short-term lease arrangement, and that was negotiated by the Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group. I’ll throw to my colleague Rear Admiral Brad Smith for any further details.  

Rear Adm. Smith: Nothing further to add to that—other than that the program has been in place since 2017.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The lease on these Navy ships was reportedly extended in 2020 for two years. What was the cost of that two-year lease extension?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice and get back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no-one in the room who can answer that question?  

Rear Adm. Smith: Not at this time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the ships today—the Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy? Are they still on lease from the National Australia Bank?  

Rear Adm. Smith: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the agreed residual value of the two ships that NAB can purchase if the Navy ends the lease?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll also get that one back to you, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total amount that has been paid to NAB under these leases for both ships, Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the Australian Defence Force leasing patrol boats from a bank that made $7 billion in profit last year?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I think Chief of Navy answered that earlier, Senator.  

/1 Comment/by

Why No Charges After Four Lives Lost?

,

I asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about a decision that has shocked many Australians — the choice not to lay charges over the 2023 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays.

Four Defence personnel — Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock — lost their lives. Comcare’s investigation identified two serious breaches of law, yet charges weren’t pursued. Media reports suggest that decision is now under review, and Ms Sharp confirmed that she is personally conducting that review. It’s ongoing, with no timeline for completion.

I asked why charges weren’t laid when the evidence pointed to potential offences. Ms Sharp explained the prosecution test: first, is there a prima facie case? Second, are there reasonable prospects of conviction? And third, is it in the public interest? She said the evidence didn’t meet the second test — reasonable prospects of conviction. That’s what’s being reviewed now.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today. I’ve got two sets of questions; they’re both fairly brief. Firstly, I want to go to your decision not to lay any charges in relation to the 2023 Defence Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays. Four Defence Force personnel—Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock—died in the crash off the Queensland coast, as you would be aware. Comcare, the country’s workplace, health and safety investigator, delivered a brief of evidence on an investigation to you where they identified two significant breaches of law— category 1 and category 2 offences. Media reporting indicates that the decision to not lay charges may be under review. Is that accurate? If so, is your review still ongoing, or has it been finalised?  

Ms Sharp: Thank you for your question, and I’d like to thank the committee for its interest in the work of my office. Before I answer your question, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the loss of lives—the loss of Captain Danniel Lyon; Corporal Alexander Naggs; Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent; and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock, known as Phillip Laycock. I also recognise the grief of their families. Your information is correct. The decision that was made not to lay charges in relation to the briefs that were referred from Comcare is under review. That’s a review I am personally conducting, and that review is ongoing.  

Senator ROBERTS: When do you expect it to be finished?  

Ms Sharp: I can’t give you a date for that. I’ll give it the attention it deserves. It’s an important matter and needs to be done thoroughly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did you decide to not lay those charges in the first place, when the federal investigator laid a brief of evidence on your desk that very clearly identified potential offences?  

Ms Sharp: Prosecutions are taken in accordance with the Prosecution policy of the Commonwealth. This is a publicly available document. It outlines the steps that are undertaken to determine whether a prosecution can be laid. The first step is whether there’s a prima facie case: has there been an offence committed? The second step is: are there reasonable prospects of conviction? This involves a thorough analysis of the evidence contained in a particular brief of evidence. It’s only then, if there are reasonable prospects of conviction, that the third stage of the test—whether the proceeding is in the public interest—is considered. In this case, it was determined that there were not reasonable prospects of conviction, based on the evidence contained in the briefs referred by Comcare.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that what you’re reviewing?  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The families want this to go to court. You’d be aware of that, I’d say.  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The workplace investigator says this should go to court. The commission of inquiry has had extensive evidence, and you say, ‘No, we aren’t laying charges.’ Why not? What turned you against it?  

Ms Sharp: As I said, the evidence that was referred in the briefs by Comcare was considered. On the basis of that evidence, there were not reasonable prospects to convict. I understand the family’s desire for this matter to go to court. All of the things that the family have identified are relevant to the public interest. I can say that if there were reasonable prospects, the prosecution of these charges would clearly be in the public interest. But that’s the third stage of the test.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do any of your employees who worked on the referral for this Taipan helicopter crash have any current or previous association with the Department of Defence? You can take that on notice.  

Ms Sharp: Not to my knowledge, but I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you feel you have adequate resources and budget to take on this matter?  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers; it’s refreshing. Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?  

Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.  

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?  

Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?  

Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed? 

Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much. 

/by

Australia Can’t Defend Itself — And the Major Parties Are to Blame

,

Both the Liberal and Labor parties have left Australia unable to properly defend ourselves. As a result, we are entirely reliant on other countries to come to our aid.

One Nation believes we should have a Defence Force that is lethal, capable and well resourced to defend Australia and our approaches, not join forever wars in foreign countries.

In this speech, I share the story of RAAF pilot Daniel Dare, a man with an unblemished record, who has been forced into exile and will be arrested if he ever steps foot in Australia again.

Why? Because the Defence Department was just a few days late in approving his sick leave — and now they want to throw him into a maximum-security prison for not reporting to work while he was dealing with mental health issues caused by Defence.

This story is a clear example of out-of-touch generals and politicians destroying morale and the very people who sign up to put their lives on the line for this country.

No politician has the right to stand up on ANZAC Day and invoke the memory of our fallen if they aren’t willing to call out the gutless cowards in the upper brass who are destroying our Defence Force today.

Transcript

The Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 is an admission of failure on two fronts: the housing crisis and our ability to defend ourselves. Defence Housing Australia is the agency tasked with putting a roof over the heads of our Australian Defence Force personnel, the fine people who serve all Australians. This bill will extend that mission significantly to include housing foreign military personnel. This bill is a flow-on consequence of the housing crisis, a catastrophe. 

It has been generated particularly out of concern for the situation in Perth. They, like all of our capital cities, are in an acute housing crisis, with a rental vacancy rate of 0.7 per cent, which is frankly shocking. Only Darwin and Hobart are slightly worse. Perth is lined up to cop the brunt of foreign personnel increases related to AUKUS under Submarine Rotational Force West, which is expected to accept thousands of foreign military personnel and contractors in relation to AUKUS preparations. This bill, though, isn’t just related to Perth. It extends the ability of Defence Housing Australia to house foreign personnel anywhere in the country. 

Concerns have been raised about Defence Housing Australia’s ability to take care of our current soldiers. I want to now focus on Defence’s wilful, sustained, ongoing lack of care and accountability. 7 News Townsville reported on the story of Mitchell Connolly, a Townsville soldier who has been asking Defence Housing to fix black mould in his house that has been making his children and pregnant wife sick. After being ignored on all proper channels, he went to the media as a last resort and is now facing retribution for raising those complaints. That goes to the key problem with the Liberal and Labor approach to defence. Boats, submarines and fighter jets are all important, yet the people in our Defence Force are vital, and they are spat on by the upper brass. 

To demonstrate this point, I want to read parts of a letter from a pilot who can’t return to this country because Defence will arrest him for being AWOL after they delayed approving his sick leave for a couple of days.

This is from his letter to me: 

Dear Senator Roberts

My name is Daniel Dare and I served for more than eleven years as a pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force. 

I am writing to ask for your help and to place on the parliamentary record how senior Defence officials handled my case after a serious abuse of administrative power by my Commanding Officer (CO). 

My immediate aim is a simple: To be able to return to Australia safely and be with my family and support network, so that I can recover, as I have not been able to return to Australia for over eighteen months. 

I am not seeking to excuse my conduct. 

I am asking Parliament to consider whether the response was appropriate, proportionate, consistent with what Defence leaders tell Australians about empathy, prevention and member wellbeing. 

Like many other ADF members, I joined straight after school. 

I deployed in flying and non-flying roles overseas and at home, including the Middle East and support after bushfires, floods and cyclones, and work during Operation Aged Care Assist. 

I am grateful for those years and for my colleagues. 

My concerns are not with them but with a leadership culture that, when confronted with an avoidable problem, chose escalation over resolution and appearances over duty of care. 

In March 2023, after more than a decade of unblemished service, my CO accused me of expressing a negative view of the Squadron to another member. 

The allegation was based on a text message I did not write, disseminate, or even know existed. An extremely flawed “fact find” was conducted, which did not include interviewing me. 

On that basis the CO attempted to impose a twelve-month formal warning and cancel an already-approved flying instructor posting, despite lacking the authority to cancel the posting and despite the Air Force’s desperate need of flying instructors. 

Through later freedom-of-information requests I learned that legal advice was sought by the CO only after the punitive action had begun. The effort was abandoned only when I retained a civilian solicitor: Cameron Niven, of Soldier’s Legal Counsel, who persuaded the CO’s direct superior to drop it due to the deficiencies. 

But by then the damage was already done. The episode was plainly maladministration. 

It shattered any trust I had left in the organisation, leaving me completely disillusioned and was the point at which my mental health began to deteriorate. 

Rather than pursue a medical discharge, I first tried to leave in a way that protected the taxpayer and kept me available if needed. 

I applied to transfer to the Air Force reserves from December, totalling twelve years of full-time service, and agreed in advance to repay any service debt. 

My new chain of command supported the application. 

A delegate in the Directorate of Personnel – Air Force, denied it without even bothering to ring me and initially refused to return the application with his written reasons, in an apparent attempt to prevent me from redressing the denial. 

My lawyer Mr. Niven was once again required to intervene, simply to get a document that should have been provided in the first instance. That became the pattern: stonewalling, delay and an aversion to transparent decision-making. 

By late 2023 I was on medical sick leave. The grievance and review processes dragged with little substantive progress. As 31 March 2024 approached, being the date for medical review, I requested an extension of sick leave and, as a contingency, applied for long service leave from 2 April. 

The application for long service leave was refused, and I was directed to report for duty on 2 April despite documented medical concerns. 

Returning under those circumstances would have breached basic work health and safety obligations. 

In the absence of a timely decision on my sick-leave extension, I made the difficult decision not to present for duty on 2 April in order to protect my wellbeing. 

The response was senseless. 

Military and civilian police were sent to my home to arrest me and return me to base in handcuffs, but I was overseas by this point. 

The next phase escalated further. 

An international pursuit was coordinated, drawing on ADF, Australian Federal Police, DFAT and foreign law-enforcement resources, all at the taxpayers’ expense. Group Captain Maria Brick, then Director of the Strategic Incident Management – Air Force section, coordinated actions; a five-year arrest warrant was issued by Air Commodore Bradley Clarke, Commander Air Mobility Group, 

I do not contest Defence’s power to enforce discipline. 

I question the appropriateness and proportionality of deploying such resources against one unwell member whose recent maladministration, attempt to voluntarily discharge and medical circumstances were known to the chain of command. 

One act in particular crossed a line. 

Air Marshal Robert Chipman, then Chief of Air Force, now Vice Chief of the Defence Force, wrote to my private overseas employer in his official capacity disclosing personal information about me and notifying them that I was subject to an arrest warrant under military law. 

That letter is now the subject of a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. 

It is difficult to reconcile such an approach with what Air Marshal Chipman told the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, only weeks earlier, on the 13th of March 2024 about harm prevention, member wellbeing and empathy in leadership. 

Publicly, Air Marshal Chipman emphasised avoiding the conditions that lead to ill-health and named empathy as the most important attribute of command. 

Privately, he chose the most harmful and destructive punitive options available. 

A key fact also emerged through Freedom of information. 

Although my sick-leave extension was undecided on 2 April 2024 when I did not present for work, Defence medical approved a further six weeks on 6 April. That determination was not disclosed to me— 

Isn’t that deceit?

No effort was made to de-escalate or correct the record. Instead, the pursuit continued as if I had no medical status at all. 

With salary withheld and my employment prospects damaged, I had little choice but to pursue medical separation.  

That process itself became an unresolvable ordeal. 

I was told I needed a Defence medical officer assessment to support approval of sick leave, which would resolve the absence, but I was denied telehealth access while overseas. 

If I returned in person to obtain it, I would be arrested and incarcerated before I could be seen. 

In April 2025 a medical delegate determined that I was unfit for further service and should be medically separated, with sick leave until separation. 

Five days later a separate administrative process was initiated to involuntarily separate me, relying on the record of absence that had already been resolved by the medical decision and commencement of sick leave five days earlier. 

Defence appeared to be weaponising the military justice system to maximise harm. 

I continue to seek review of that administrative decision, at my own expense through the federal court. 

This will unfortunately also cost the taxpayer as Defence will undoubtedly seek to fight it. 

My matter was referred to the Director of Military Prosecutions, Air Commodore Ian Henderson, for trial before a Defence Force Magistrate towards the end of 2024, with the prospect of up to 12 months’ imprisonment. 

The human cost has been real. 

During this period my great-uncle, Leslie, became gravely ill in December 2024 and passed away a few months later. 

I asked to return home safely to see him, as we were close and he was dear to me. 

This request was denied. 

Given the existence of warrants and the charges, it was clear that if I returned, I would be arrested on arrival and held to face a DFM proceeding, without ever seeing him. 

I spent Christmas alone overseas and later grieved his death, again alone and far away from family and support. 

I am not seeking pity. 

I am asking Parliament to consider what this says about the system’s priorities when a member is plainly unwell and clearly trying to resolve matters lawfully. 

I also want to be clear about responsibility. 

Failing to present for duty on 2 April 2024 was my decision. 

I am not seeking to excuse it. 

I ask that it be seen in context: an earlier abuse of administrative power, an irrevocable breakdown of trust and disillusionment, deteriorating health, a documented medical basis for leave, and a year-long pattern of escalation rather than resolution. 

A response that ignores medical evidence, amplifies risk, and privileges appearances over problem-solving is neither good administration nor good leadership. 

I have also raised a concern, currently the subject of an FOI request, that the Air Force may have interfered, formally or informally, with civilian hiring of ADF pilots, namely at Qantas, to manage retention issues. 

If true, this would mean that even those who have completed their obligations can face covert barriers to employment. 

This matter deserves inquiry and formal answers. 

Pilots who serve their country should not be disadvantaged by secret arrangements once their service is complete. 

Across the period of my ordeal, I made extensive work health and safety reports about the impact of management actions on my wellbeing, no less than 27 individual reports. 

Decisions consistently increased risk and pressure, and the cost was shifted to the member and, ultimately, to the taxpayer. 

I am not exaggerating when I say that, due to how this situation was handled by Air Marshal Chipman and his subordinates, it cost the Australian tax payer millions. 

On 13 August 2025 I was discharged. In the lead-up I asked for a short administrative extension so I would not be left without income while DVA and CSC claims were processed. 

This request was refused. As I write, I am navigating those claims from overseas without income, after a year of withheld salary. 

I wrote to both Matt Keogh and Richard Marles, on several occasions, seeking an intervention grounded in reasonableness. 

They ignored it. 

This is not only about one member. 

It is about the credibility of Defence leadership before Parliament and the public. 

The ADF cannot rely on deterrence theatre, secrecy and maximal punishment to solve cultural problems. 

Strength in leadership is restraint, fairness and good judgement. When the system confuses severity for strength, it looks weak— 

it is weak— 

It wastes public money, undermines morale, and deters good people from serving. 

It also undermines recruitment and retention by signalling that members who become unwell or seek a lawful exit will be treated as problems to be crushed, rather than people to be supported and transitioned safely. 

ADF members deserve better processes than the ones I encountered. Taxpayers deserve better stewardship than funding unnecessary pursuits that serve the egos of senior officers, rather than Australia’s interest. The public deserves a Defence organisation whose leaders model the empathy and prevention they commend in public. 

Yours sincerely, 

Daniel Dare

This is what we have to fix if we ever want to have a hope of defending ourselves and housing our defence forces. We have to take care of the Australians who choose to put their life on the line and wear the flag on their shoulder. Thank you, Daniel, and thank you, every member and veteran of the Australian Defence Force. You all deserve far better. 

One Nation will be supporting this bill because, without the help of allies, we are completely unable to defend our own country. That’s what’s happening in this country. We need a sovereign defence capability, and that starts with valuing our members—care, not systematic abuse; accountability, not bullying to cover up; and honouring Australian values, starting with mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum. All we want is some fairness, integrity and truth. 

/5 Comments/by

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

Australia Left Defenceless After Decades of Failures

,

Australia has been left almost defenceless after decades of failures from both sides of politics.

They’ve gutted our defence forces and failed our troops. The current Chief of the Defence even criticised a “warrior” culture in our special forces. This is absurd.

We have to give our Defence Force personnel a proper purpose and a clear mission. We need to spend less money on gender advisers and more on ammo.

Transcript

Some commentators question whether we should have warriors in the Australian Defence Force. My answer to that question is emphatic: yes, we should. Australians ask the government to protect them from foreign enemies. There’s a line on a map; it’s called our national border. Inside that line is the country of Australia and its people, and our resources, our families, our property and our way of life. 

Outside our borders there are some foreign countries who wish to bend Australia to their will. It’s only a matter of time before someone else in the world with a big enough military believes they can change what happens inside our borders. History shows that. As the people of Australia, we ask our Defence Force to ensure no enemy that wishes to do us harm may cross our border. We take some of the fittest, smartest and most motivated young Australians and ask them to put their lives on the line, for that line, to protect what’s inside it. We ask that our defence members be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. It’s a debt we can never truly repay. 

I’ve had the privilege of listening to many soldiers, sailors and pilots. In almost all of those conversations one word comes up. That word is ‘service’. These Australians answered the call to serve our country and to serve our Australian flag. Defence personnel ask for something simple in return. They ask for something that I agree they deserve. They ask for a purpose to their service. They ask for a clear mission. Above all, they ask for accountable leaders. The Defence Force has been in a drought of accountable leadership at the very top. Politicians have always invoked the Anzac spirit in big speeches. But it’s not enough to stand up on Anzac Day and claim to back the troops. We must deliver the things they deserve every day: a clear purpose, a clear mission and accountability for our leaders. Successive politicians, ministers and especially generals have failed to deliver this for our defence personnel.  

Australia had forces deployed to Afghanistan for 20 years. Australia’s uniform military was pitted against the Taliban, an insurgent guerrilla organisation. With superior technology, tactics, resources, training and troops, Western forces famously won nearly every tactical engagement. The Taliban reportedly had a saying: ‘You have the watches’—referring to the Western technology—’but we have the time.’ As some commentators quipped, we spent 20 years and billions of dollars and sacrificed Australian lives to replace the Taliban with the Taliban. The tens of thousands of ADF personnel who were deployed to the Middle East deserve our praise. They accepted the call and committed their lives to it. It’s the leaders, the politicians and the generals that must be held accountable for the decision to send our best to faraway lands. 

On his last day in parliament, on The 7.30 Report former foreign minister Alexander Downer said that John Howard walked into cabinet when he came back from 9/11 in the US and simply declared, ‘We are off to Iraq.’ There was no discussion with the public and not even a word of debate in parliament, just the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was an illegal war based on a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction, as our political leaders claimed. Yet not one politician or general has been jailed for throwing our best into it. Not one was even called out or even held accountable. Our enlisted and junior officers did everything they could to serve us while deployed to the wider Middle East. Scores paid the ultimate sacrifice. What about the politicians and senior generals who failed and hamstrung our soldiers? Those apparent leaders never delivered a coherent reason or an end state for what we were trying to achieve. 

Without a compelling reason for why our soldiers were deployed to the Middle East, many of our veterans and serving members were left disillusioned. Make no mistake: there were no angels in the Taliban ranks. Those insurgents were some of the worst of the worst. Despite this, our warriors rightly asked why. Why were we in desert country spilling Australian blood only for the Taliban to retake those bases from the Afghan army, as many on the ground warned they would? The answer is that the leaders failed to ever give our soldiers, aviators and sailors the purpose they deserve. 

Our lesson must be to never repeat these mistakes. The mission of our defence forces should be clear. If you sign up for the armed forces, your job will be to protect the sovereignty of Australia from anyone who wishes to do us harm. It will not be to fight forever wars in faraway lands having been sent there based on lies. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I know that our warriors in the military deserve a place in our hearts, and our service men and women deserve a damn good reason to be there and they deserve and need strong leadership. (Time expired) 

/6 Comments/by