Posts

Seeking Truth in Tragedy

Families and relatives of Australian Defence Force personnel killed in a fatal military helicopter crash appeared at a Senate hearing to share their stories.

They expressed deep anger over the senior ADF leadership’s refusal to admit fault, take responsibility, or answer straightforward questions, resorting instead to defensive “word salad” and bureaucratic deflection.

Critical equipment oversights were highlighted, such as flying aircraft with known defective turbines (unlike the Navy and New Zealand, which grounded their fleets) and ignoring safety reports regarding malfunctioning fast-release ladders.

They told us of a toxic culture where service members avoid raising safety concerns out of fear of harming their careers, promotions, or looking weak, leading to dangerous normalisation of risk.

Surviving partners detailed immense frustration with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), citing rigid, unrolling support packages, bureaucratic hurdles, and a lack of practical assistance during their acute grief.

While these families maintained immense respect for frontline soldiers, sailors, and airmen, as well as immediate unit commanders, they expressed profound distrust in senior military leadership and questioned the overall security posture of the ADF.

Despite their devastating losses, the families expressed profound hope that the inquiry would finally bring out the truth, ensuring greater safety and accountability for future generations serving in the armed forces.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. Thank you for your families’ service, because it’s not just the person who enlists who serves, is it? Thank you for your submissions and for sharing what your boys, your men loved. Look, I can’t imagine your grief and anger—I just can’t—especially because your loss and harm were avoidable. I asked some questions and had a briefing from Defence, Army, after the Jervis Bay incident. I kept asking why, and I got the feeling very strongly—I want to put it on the record—that they were delaying. They were dodging. Is there anything else you’d like to put on the record that you want to say? Your statements have been really effective. Does anything else come to mind? How do you feel? What are you feeling? Yes, Mr Naggs?  

Mr Naggs: ‘Where does this end?’ is a question I think we all have. How does it end?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’d like clarity.  

Mr Naggs: Yes. I’d also like an admission from the leaders of Defence that something went wrong. What we just saw there was an absolute effort to not admit anything. I don’t know where that fits in with the concept of leadership. I always thought leadership was about accountability and honesty—just an admission of, ‘Hey, we can do better.’ There are a whole heap of recommendations that can come out of these reports, and they can say, ‘We’ll adopt them,’ but the first thing of reform is to admit some accountability and transparency and go forward. That’s leadership. How do you train leadership when that fundamental value is not displayed in your leaders?  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Sometimes it feels like, when you’ve got Defence, it’s ‘pin the tail on the jellyfish’. It just keeps moving and avoiding.  

Ms Loft: Unfortunately, we often see that it’s not the people making the decisions that are held to any account or fault. It’s the people far down the chain of command who are simply enforcing those decisions that were made far above them.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve seen that in a number of ways in the last 10 years.  

Mr Nugent: I was sitting here today listening to the evidence of the Defence people—General Hafner—and I was waiting for you to ask the question: ‘How big is the flight manual? How many pages does the flight manual have? 10? 100? 1,000? 2,000?’ It’s huge. To sit there and say, ‘We put it in the book. Read the book. The pilots had read the book. And then, in those fatal few seconds, recall the book. Act appropriately. Follow your training’—  

Ms Nugent: And on something that’s against human instinct.  Completely against human instinct. Unfortunately, they talk about pitch ladders and horizons in the TopOwl, and you don’t get an opportunity to see what that actually looks like. That’s things moving around in front of you. It’s not something just off in the corner. It’s right there in front of you. To say, ‘It’s in the book,’ is an absolute cop-out. The Jervis Bay incident is a classic example of that. No-one told the pilots, and it’s in evidence that the pilots weren’t told that they were flying aircraft with a known defective turbine that was going to get fixed in maintenance down the line— Unidentified speaker: But not at the same time.  and that turbine could fail in a critical phase of flight.  

Mrs Lyon: Everyone else changed their turbines. Navy did. New Zealand did. Everyone else changed them.  

Ms Loft: They grounded the fleet.  

Ms Whyte: Immediately.  

Mr Nugent: My question for that one is: would those pilots on that night or the pilot in the ditched aircraft, had they known that they could have experienced an engine failure in a hover or a critical phase of flight, have reacted differently?  

Ms Nugent: Would they have gotten in there?  

Mr Nugent: Would they have just powered the aircraft away?  

Ms Nugent: They had people dangling underneath them. They didn’t even have a chance to know, to even stand up for themselves. They just said: ‘Alright, off we go. Everything’s fine.’ And they had however many people under them. It wasn’t just the pilot’s life or the crew’s life that was at risk then. That’s a lucky incident.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: We’ve since found out that the Army Aviation evaluation team also told them that the fast release on the ladder wouldn’t work in situations like this. They’d been told about it and they hadn’t fixed it. In that very situation, the fast release was pulled and didn’t work, and that’s why we were so close to yet another catastrophe. The ladder wasn’t released and all of those service personnel were pretty much under the helicopter as it was going down because, again, they ignored an AATES report.  

Mrs Lyon: That’s my concern. I’ve said it before. So we now know about the turbines and we now know about the circumnavigating and getting through TopOwl. What other pieces of equipment sitting in military aircraft, inside weapons, inside other really life-altering devices have also been circumnavigated? What else are they putting in or not putting in? Do you know?  

Senator ROBERTS: You need exposure, truth, openness.  

Mrs Lyon: Yes, that’s all we’re asking for.  

Mr Nugent: The cynical version of me says that they had made the decision to change the new Black Hawke prior to Talisman Sabre. Max was getting ready to go and do his Black Hawk conversion. The cynical part of me says, ‘This is the big show. Every two years is the big show. How bad will we look to our allies when we say our aircrafts don’t cut it? We can’t fly tonight. We shouldn’t be flying.’ They didn’t put in the recommendations from the near-miss at Townsville. If those recommendations were in practice and in place, would they have launched that night?  

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask and I still will: what can I or what can we do? You’ve already answered the question in part. You won recognition and acknowledgement that your husband fought to the end because he cared.  

Mrs Lyon: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The last thing he did was to prevent that accident, that fatality, so I give you that acknowledgement—from me anyway.  

Mrs Lyon: Thank you.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You can read it in the report. I just wish it was said in the conclusions. You read it in the report. Actually, for the first time ever, I heard it expressed just before. There wasn’t a lot that pricked my ears up. We did hear that expressed just earlier, Mrs Lyon.  

Mrs Lyon: We did.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: We should reflect back on that and acknowledge it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I asked: what do you need? You’ve already said ‘care’—care for those who are left behind.  

Ms Loft: Self-Determination. Alex told me one day, if he were not to come home, that I’d get this, this and this and I’d be looked after, and we have not been looked after. They go to work every day on the assumption that, if they do not come home, everything will be okay for whoever’s left behind and that is not the case. You’re left to fight through bureaucracy. You’re left to fight through a number of systems. We were a complex situation. We didn’t find out the result of the FSB investigation for almost two years. They were two years left to sit there, twiddle our thumbs and wonder what the heck was actually going on. You’re given two years under DVA with an acute support package to regain capacity. We’re still in the thick of this process. How can you even begin to regain capacity? This has been raised. Under those two years, you are allocated X amount of funding. That funding is then sent off to a delegate to actually determine where that funding is allocated. I did not use the majority of the funding that I received because it did not sit in something that I needed at that time. As part of my package, I was given services for return to work. I returned to work maybe six months ago. How could I use that in two years when we spent 57 days sitting in hearings? It’s one thing to hear that and say, ‘Okay, we’ve been given 57 days of hearings. That’s 57 days out of two years.’ Sure it is. That’s not wrong. We had the emotional lead up, where you spend a week preparing yourself to know that you’re about to hear the most traumatic information you could possibly hear about your loved one and the continued failures. Then you have the comedown from that during which you come home and you’re so mentally and emotionally fatigued that it takes another few weeks to put your life back together. So, yes, it may have been 57 days. In reality, it was far more than that. Yet we actually applied. We petitioned to have our acute support package extended and it was denied. It didn’t reach ministerial level. It was handled below that.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Was this even though that each of you had unspent funds in it?  

Ms Whyte: The fact that it doesn’t even roll over—  

Ms Loft: Yes, it doesn’t roll over.  

Ms Whyte: is one recommendation that would make sense, and to be able to extend it because we didn’t have the capacity to (a) know it existed, that we could choose when it started. We didn’t know. We didn’t have the capacity. We weren’t informed. And (b) we didn’t have capacity to use it. We weren’t capable of being like, ‘Oh, what could we do right now in our free time to build capacity?’  

Ms Loft: Things that we asked for, we actually couldn’t get. I couldn’t cook. I cooked for Alex, so the thought of actually being able to cook a meal—I didn’t use my oven for 18 months. I asked for something like a thermomix because you just have to be able to delegate and offset any of those day-to-day tasks that used to be very simple 

Senator ROBERTS: The other thing that you said, Mrs Lyon, was that you’d like an admission from Defence, for them to have some responsibility. Basically, you’re saying that they failed your families in the fatal crash and they’re continuing to fail your families.  

Mrs Lyon: Correct. What happened to Dann and the boys and what happened to our family unit is the most devastating thing you could ever imagine. What then happened afterwards, and the trauma that that has caused, has been indescribable. It has not stopped, it will not stop and every time we turn around there is something that makes it worse. I would like that acknowledged and apologised for.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there anything else anyone would like to say along that line? I want to change tack slightly and I don’t want to do that—  

Mr Nugent: I appreciate that. Look, I’ve listened to a lot of evidence over the years. I’m a 30-year-plus career policeman. I’ve been in enough courtrooms. I’d really like senior Army officers to just answer questions with ‘yes’ and ‘no’. I got a little bit tired of them thinking that they were the smartest people in the room. Sadly, they’re not. They definitely weren’t at the IGADF inquiry. There was the word salad, the stretching of words and the adding of acronyms to deliberately not answer questions. Even with the last question today about reputational damage— that damages their reputation.  

Ms Whyte: Precisely.  

Ms Loft: But also it’s— 

Mr Nugent: There’s damage to their reputation because they just cannot be honest and answer a question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’.  

Ms Nugent: And then it’s a punch in the face for us, again, to sit there and not—  

Mr Nugent: I sit there and I listen to this word salad over and over and over again.  

Ms Nugent: You just want someone to say ‘I’m sorry’—not even ‘I’m sorry’, but just ‘yes’ or ‘no’: ‘We were at fault here’ or ‘We were not’. I’m not going to take it personally. To go around and have my brother, your partner, your husband, your son to just be a blip of nothing and to not acknowledge that they were a human and that they mattered is exhausting. It’s just exhausting. 

Senator ROBERTS: Did you see the testimony of Mr Wilson and Mr Lamb?  

Mrs Lyon: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The accusations of conflicts of interest stymied the investigation. We heard about the corruption—and I think you used the word ‘suppression’; it may have been someone else—and also evidence being fabricated. That is pretty serious stuff.  

Mrs Lyon: It is, isn’t it?  

Mr Nugent: This is no different to an internal investigation in the police. It’s no different.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Nugent: The first question that you get asked—the first form you fill out is the conflict-of-interest form. Perceived or real, you must disclose it before you take part, and I can tell you hand on heart: if you tick that box to say there is a perceived or potential conflict of interest, in 100 per cent of occasions you will be excluded from that investigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me ask you a question, because some people in Defence have said that this inquiry just prolongs your agony. Does this inquiry needlessly extend your grief, or does it give you hope that some truth might come out?  

Mrs Lyon: It absolutely gives hope.  

Mr Naggs: It gives us hope.  

Mrs Lyon: We are so incredibly grateful, because we are desperate for the truth, and we can do this for as long as it takes to get there, because our boys deserve that. Our men and women who serve this country deserve it. Everyone has a right to go to work and be safe—everyone, no matter what they do. There is a difference between going to war, being in war, and going to work every day and doing your job, and that’s what they were doing. They were doing their job, and they had a right to be safe.  

Ms Whyte: I’ll add to that. Special operations shouldn’t be a reason not to adhere to that as well. It shouldn’t be more of a reason to go under the carpet—’Let’s not look at that or acknowledge it.’ They still had the same duty of care to uphold, and they didn’t.  

Ms Loft: They understood that their roles were inherently risky. Everyone knows that when it comes to military aviation, realistically, unfortunately, it’s a matter of when, not if. But, as has been said multiple times, they stepped onto those jets assuming that everything was fine and that everything had been put through rigorous testing and was signed off by the best of the best, and they had faith in that.  

Mr Nugent: Well, they have to have absolute 100 per cent faith in that, don’t they?  

Ms Loft: And they can’t question it, because otherwise how do they do their jobs 

Mr Nugent: Defence in general leverages young people with a can-do attitude. It exists for that reason—or not for that reason but because of that reason. Young men and women will put themselves in dangerous positions, and they leverage that. Over time, you get risk normalisation: ‘It was okay last night; we got away with that one.’ Probably, sadly, it was too long a gap between the Black Hawk disaster and our crash.  

Senator ROBERTS: Even Jervis Bay.  

Mr Nugent: Jervis Bay is a classic example. Max was rattled by that incident, and he said, ‘But hopefully it’s okay; they’re fixing the engines.’  

Ms Whyte: And he had faith in that. He thought they would do that.  

Mr Nugent: That’s pretty telling, you know. And how did they deal with that accident? They all went out on the drink, didn’t they? ‘Come on, boys. Let’s go to the pub. We’ll sort this out and have a chat.’ Culture—this comes down to culture.  

Ms Loft: And I think the inherent—I suppose I’ll use the word ‘tendencies’. Even though they may want to speak openly and honestly, at the end of the day, if they speak, it’ll cost them a promotion or it’ll cost them their career.  

Ms Nugent: You don’t want to be the one to say, ‘I’m too scared for that,’ or, ‘I don’t feel comfortable.’ You don’t want to seem like that. There are some girls in 6 Av, and I’m good friends with one of them. But, if you’re a guy, you don’t want to speak up, because you’ll look bad. Max was the one of the most junior. He was, I think, the youngest. He doesn’t want to say, ‘I’m sorry,’ because it’ll look bad on him, because that’s the culture of it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Twenty-odd years ago, when I was working as a consultant, I found it hard to get people to do their planning in underground coalmines: ‘Oh, no; she’ll be right.’ I went to a retired colonel and a retired captain, and their pride in the Australian Defence Force—both were in the Army, and I realised that the Australian Army punched above its weight in so many ways right from its inception. It’s got a record and a history of punching above its weight, earning the respect of its enemies and its allies. What the hell has happened?  

Ms Loft: It makes me really sad, because Alex discharged—this is before I was with him—because he kept getting passed over for deployment. He enlisted at 18. At 18, you think you know the world, but you really don’t. So he discharged and he got back in, and at that point that’s an informed decision. You already knew what was happening. It was his late 20s. He understood what he was signing up for, but he didn’t sign up for this. He was a proud soldier. One of the first things that we did together was the dawn service in the driveway, because it was the start of COVID. I had said to him, ‘Hey, I’m doing the dawn service in the driveway tomorrow.’ He goes, ‘Well, yes, I will be, too.’ We were two of only a few in the street in Toowoomba, freezing, listening to the neighbours’ radio. The guy bled green. He would have been in Army until he was retired in Army, because he loved what he did and he was good at what he did. But this is not what was in the contract or what he signed up for. It really upsets me that he was so proud to be a part of that organisation, and we’ve just seen ongoing failures.  

Mr Naggs: And do you know what his whole impression of civilian life was? He went and got a mechanic’s apprenticeship at a car dealer’s while he was out.  

Ms Loft: Maybe censor what he actually said!  

Mr Naggs: When he told me he was going back in, he said: ‘No-one’s got your back out here. Everybody’s trying to bring you down in civilian life. In the Army, people have got your back. They’ve got to have your back, and you’ve got to have theirs.’  

Mrs Lyon: And the boys do have each other’s back.  

Mr Naggs: Yes, the boys do.  

Ms Loft: I cannot fault his friends. They have stepped up where there have been so many failures. 

Senator ROBERTS: What level are you talking about? His immediate superiors?  

Mr Nugent: No. I will put it on the record that Max’s commanding officer—I won’t use his name because it’s probably still protected—is out of the Army now. He has been very good to me and our family.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re talking about the senior levels of aviation?  

Mr Nugent: He’s the commanding officer at 6th Aviation.  

Unidentified speaker: At the time.  

Mr Nugent: At the time. But the senior officers now, when I look at the evidence that’s been given—I look at Senate estimates. I take an interest when it’s Defence because I like watching them sit there and not answer questions—  

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t!  

Mr Nugent: on every single topic.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I’ll take that on notice, Mr Nugent.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me ask you another question—has anyone else got anything to say?  

Mrs Lyon: We were incredibly proud of Dan being a pilot as well. Dan would always line up our home, or my daughter’s—or at the time, my son’s—day care and fly over. He always made sure that we always were able to see him coming home. We always waved. We knew it was daddy’s helicopter, and that was what our family did. We were so proud, and my son was so proud. He wanted to grow up to be a helicopter pilot just like his daddy. He doesn’t want to do that anymore. He will tell you that he doesn’t want to die like his daddy, and that, as a mother, is the most heartbreaking thing to hear. I don’t want him to join our ADF. I don’t trust it, and I don’t want him anywhere near it. I want my son to come home. I can’t imagine what that is like. It just breaks my heart because it would have been so different for our family otherwise. We were so proud of that service, and we still are. But it’s in a different capacity now. Sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, don’t apologise. Thank you for sharing that with us. Anyone else?  

Ms Loft: Everything’s in my submission really. I’m sure there are other things I’ve forgotten about.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Can I say that for all four of these young men, if they have family and partners like you, their lives were blessed.  

CHAIR: I think that—  

Senator ROBERTS: If I could just ask my final question.  

CHAIR: Of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: As Australians—not as bereaving parents, sisters and mothers—do you feel secure under the Australian Defence Force supposedly guarding our country?

Ms Whyte: What did you say, Dan? ‘Open the doors.’  

Mr Nugent: Yes, open the doors. The clock is ticking, isn’t it?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my biggest concern.  

Mr Nugent: To get this right. Defence knows it. Government knows it. I fear we’ve missed the boat a little bit. I think the average soldier, airman and sailor on the ground will do a fantastic job with what they’ve got at the time.  

Mrs Lyon: Because they have a love of it.  

Mr Nugent: I have every faith in that, but—  

Ms Whyte: They can only do as much as they can do under the circumstances.  

Mr Nugent: you can only do with what you’ve got.  

Ms Loft: I think it’s important that we still have incredible men and women that are willing to sign up because if we don’t, then who’s left? 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Naggs, can I summarise by bastardising your phrase because I thought it was very, very powerful and it reflects my view of reality as well. The senior ranks of the ADF are not defending Australia; they’re defending their mistakes.  

Mr Naggs: This platform was the last of the non-American weapon systems. If you’re going to bring in the American weapon systems, this had to go. But did that have anything to do with it?  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I was about to say something about French submarines, so I think we shouldn’t—  

CHAIR: I am going to end now because that will lead us to AUKUS somehow, I’m sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I comment about something else?  

CHAIR: Just one thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to acknowledge the testimony of everyone today, especially this group, and Mr Wilson and Major General Lamb. I also want to acknowledge your chairmanship. You’ve done it very sensitively and honestly. Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Trading Defence for Dollars: Australia’s Debt Crisis

,

Labor is so desperate to fund its spending addiction it’s selling off Defence assets instead of living within its means.

Australia’s debt has passed $1 trillion, yet Treasurer Chalmers wants to flog off 67 defence sites, including strategic assets like Victoria Barracks.

One Nation would cut waste, balance the budget, strengthen our defence capability and keep these sites working for Australians, not put them on the auction block.

One Nation’s advice to the Treasurer is simple.

Don’t sell these sites. Use them.

Transcript

I thank Senator Lambie for this motion, which One Nation supports wholeheartedly. British prime minister Thatcher made the famous comment that socialists always run out of other people’s money. Australia’s federal debt under Labor has now passed $1 trillion, yet this government continues to run deficits to fund their big spending agenda. Australia will shortly be unable to keep borrowing at affordable interest rates. We recently just barely avoided a downgrade to our credit rating, yet rates are rising anyway. Ten-year government bonds have gone from 4.85 per cent in the budget to 5.22 per cent—the highest level in 15 years. This means our borrowing will cost more, the deficit will get worse and we will have to borrow even more to pay for it. 

Printing money is not an option. During COVID, the Liberal government printed so much money and ever since we’ve been living with the inflation this caused. More printing will cause more inflation. This means Treasurer Chalmers had two choices: reduce spending and live within our means or sell off the silverware. He chose selling off the silverware. One Nation would have chosen living within our means. One Nation’s alternative budget listed savings of $90 billion, costed, turning a deficit into a surplus. We would then put $40 billion back into people’s pockets through tax and duty cuts and still balance the budget. One Nation does not need to sell off public assets, and we will not. Treasurer Chalmers is flogging off 67 Defence sites, worth $3.5 billion, including sites that are in use or would be in use under a One Nation government because he needs the money. Selling off Victoria Barracks is insane. They defend our capital cities and should have an integral part of defence training and support. Selling any site weakens our defence capability and reflects this government’s pathetic attitude to defence and to veterans. One Nation’s advice to the Treasurer is simple: don’t sell these sites; use them. 

/0 Comments/by

Veterans Ahead of Politics

,

Veterans are winning because they’re refusing to stay silent.

Two years after the Royal Commission, too many veterans are still being failed by bureaucracy, delays and broken promises.

I’ve seen firsthand the incredible work being done by veteran-led organisations across Australia. They are saving lives, restoring hope and delivering results while governments drag their feet.

There is no doubt that this progress has come because, after fighting for our country, veterans kept fighting for each other.

One Nation was proud to stand united with Senator Lambie and colleagues across the chamber to put veterans and their needs ahead of politics by voting down the $5,000 cap.

Transcript

We’re winning. On this issue, we are winning, thanks to the veterans who are standing up. Thank you so much. You are winning. I’m honoured to support you. I’m honoured to sign this motion from Senator Lambie. 

Minister, you opened the door, and I thank you for that. But at the moment they’re only words, and words mean nothing. It’s the intent. You can talk about spending billions of dollars, but it’s the intent and the efficiency with which it’s spent. The backlog of claims under your government has increased. Veteran suicides remain so high that government action cannot wait another day. We need to see concrete details. How many vets need to die? I’m feeling a mixture of feelings at the moment, which I’ll get onto in a minute. But let me just read into the Hansard clause (a) of Senator Lambie’s motion that I co-signed: 

notes that today marks two years since the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed down its Final Report, yet many veterans and their families continue to face barriers to accessing timely care and support 

That’s one reason I signed this. 

And I have a mixture of feelings. I’m feeling afraid for the vets who are hanging by a thread. I’m feeling downright angry at the same time. I’m feeling sad, I’m feeling grief and I’m feeling shame—shame that we’re part of a parliament that has a history of ignoring veterans. I have all those feelings. But I can’t help the depth of the feelings in veterans at the moment. What do they need? What do we need? We need justice. We’re not getting it. We need fairness. We need truth and honesty—not getting it. And veterans need to be heard. The fact that you’ve accepted this motion and allowed it by leave means we’re winning and we are getting to the point where you are acknowledging indirectly that you’re listening or that you’ve heard. 

This Labor government, like the coalition before it, has taken the position of treating veterans with disrespect and abuse and has failed to provide them with the support they deserve. Why? Because your government is under pressure—self-inflicted pressure: your waste, hypocrisy, deceit. Everyone in Australia can feel the pressure—through inflation, through skimping of services—but we don’t need to include the veterans in that, and that’s what we’re doing. Your self-inflicted waste of taxpayer funds leaves you with the shortage. Now you’re penny pinching—the cap comes in, the spending on DVA decreases this year and then increases in the future—because you’ve got budget pressures that are self-inflicted. Why should the vets pay for that? Why? 

Placing a cap on allied health care will reduce the vital care that many veterans need and deserve. Why should travel be part of the cap? We’ve got Mr Farley in the lower house, representing Farrer, saying that a big portion of the cap is chewed up in his electorate by travel. Why should travel be included? But there are so many other things that I’ll talk about in a minute. 

Veterans have served their country at massive personal risk and massive personal cost. Yet, upon their return or discharge from service, they’ve been ignored and hurt by this Labor government’s penny pinching in the knowledge that their actions abandon their vets. You know this is going on—or maybe you don’t, because listening is not one of your strengths. Is it deliberate? Is it incompetence? Is it dishonesty? Is it fear—running away from issues? The three keys that mark this Albanese Labor government, in my opinion, are dishonesty—we were able to use the word ‘lies’, but we’re not allowed to now—waste and hypocrisy. 

Last week, I had the pleasure and the honour of joining Wounded Heroes in Townsville—a support group that’s received no Commonwealth funding despite the valuable support they’ve provided and continue to provide for our vets. They’re a crisis intervention centre. A veteran calls and says he or she hasn’t got a home. They need medical treatment, they’re about to commit suicide or they talk about one of their mates. Wounded Heroes springs into action. They receive no government funding. They raise money through their own business and through donations. I must give them a plug for the marvellous work they do and point out that they’ve got a fundraising event at Castle Hill in Townsville on the 20th of this month. Government, you’re wasting billions, and you’re not concerned about veterans. Martin and Kim Shaw—Martin turned away from a career as a merchant banker in which he could have made millions, because he was so concerned about veterans. Martin and Kim Shaw; Dave, their manager; the volunteers in their businesses; the volunteers in their op shops—what an amazing group of people. That’s what I call commitment and service. 

It was so refreshing to meet retired Lieutenant General Greg Bilton. He’s retired, and he’s volunteering as the chairman of Wounded Heroes. His eyes were alight as he discussed his love for the military, his love for veterans and the fact that he’s got something really important to do in his life. But the government doesn’t help Wounded Heroes. It does not help Wounded Heroes at all. It’s so refreshing to hear Greg Bilton talking about the inadequacies of the DVA and the inadequacies of the top brass of our military. And there’s some sadness, but he’s alive because he knows he’s contributing. Associated services like Veterans First Consulting—and Kevin Chapman, who I met—are such wonderful people. They’re data driven. 

Speaking of being data driven, I’ve just come from Senator Whitten’s office, where we’ve got two representatives from Trojan’s Trek, Dan and Tim. They’re pushing an evidence based approach to caring for veterans and providing them with the necessary mental and physical health support. Evidence based! That’s something I’ve noticed so much with veterans. As I’ve said before in the Senate, the best conversations I’ve had since being a senator have been with veterans. They’re disciplined and self-disciplined, they can use data, they can speak profoundly well and they’re just basically marvellous people. Trojan’s Trek showed me graphs with data backing them that shows they are indeed taking an evidence based approach. Dan, as he’s talking to me about his own condition, tells me he was told he’d never walk again, but watching a young lady in the gym pounding through weights inspired him, and he’s now living a normal life, but he’s got the evidence. Trojan’s Trek is having success but no funding. So many veterans organisations are having success with no funding. 

Ongoing veteran care is disgracefully underresourced. It’s a blight on the Labor-Liberal coalition uniparty. When they’re in opposition, they promise all the support for veterans. ‘It’s a really shameful approach to the veterans,’ they say the government is taking. But then when they get into government they don’t do anything, correct? They hide, and they forced veterans to jump through hoops to access care for service related injuries and conditions. That’s cruel and heartless. We can have veterans coming up against their allied healthcare cap in a matter of five months into the new financial year, and then they stop. This is what they’re afraid of. They stop, and that interrupts their healing, especially if it’s a mental health treatment, and they fall backwards. This Labor government’s approach and the coalition’s approach before it are a contributing factor to serious mental health issues for many of our returned servicemen and servicewomen. They deserve far better. 

Action needs to be taken now. Stop the delays. Cut the red tape. Cut the crap, and support these vets now by adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This is not only affecting the vets who have returned from service or been discharged from service. This is affecting the future service of the Defence Force in this country. It’s dramatically affecting retention and recruitment, because it’s eroding the concept of mateship, which is the strategically most important concept in the Australian Defence Force. 

It’s not just the future of the ADF that’s at stake here. It’s the security of 28 million Australians who rely on the ADF for their security. Right now, the Chinese Communist Party would be watching. They can see what I can see. They can see what Senator Lambie can see. They can see what so many veterans can see—the deterioration of our armed forces under the current top brass. They’re spending money for DEI initiatives, money for woke policies, money for transgender. You can’t change gender, but here we are. We’re getting people are getting paid to change gender or claim they’re changing gender and paying for dresses for them. These are warriors. They cannot change their sex. No-one can change their sex. This is happening for two reasons. The senior brass has been politicised, and the senior brass—the defence department, the politicians in Labor and Liberal who’ve been defence ministers and the senior brass-is weak, not providing the right leadership. 

Right now on the other side of the Pacific in the United States, we’ve got an administration that’s calling its soldiers warriors. It’s going well for the members of the military. I’m going to read clause B, the second clause of Senator Lambie’s motion, ‘calls on the Albanese government to urgently implement evidence-based’—your veterans are doing it—’policies and action the accepted recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, recognising that further delay is placing veterans’ lives and wellbeing at risk’. This is not too much to ask. This is basic respect for veterans who have treated our country with respect. 

In concluding, I take it that, because you’ve accepted this motion, you can see the vets have really put on a very, very strong case in the last few months, and we’re proud to support them. It’s the least we can do. Veterans, you’re winning because these people are allowing us to speak. 

/0 Comments/by

The Toxic Culture in ADF Leadership

,

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.

We support Senator Lambie. 

/by

Fatal Flaws, Zero Charges

,

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. 

/by

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. 

/1 Comment/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. 

/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