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

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

Defence Claims No Housing Issues for Troops in Townsville

,

Defence generals tell me that, despite a large number of troops being relocated to Townsville during a housing crisis, there’s no problem with finding accommodation for our diggers. This claim comes despite Townsville having a “dangerously low” rental vacancy rate of just 1%.

If you or your family are experiencing difficulties in finding accommodation after being directed to move to Townsville, please email my office as I’d like to hear from you.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How many extra people have been moved to Townsville? What numbers will Townsville increase by and are there adequate homes in Townsville?  

Senator McAllister: I think, as part of your answer, Lieutenant General Stuart, you might respond to the first part of the senator’s question, which was about making diggers homeless. You may wish to include a response to that in your answer.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: That’s just not a factually correct statement. We’re not making soldiers homeless. We have a plan that’s been worked through with our team mates in the Security and Estate Group, who are our liaison with Defence Housing, and manage the on-base accommodation. And, of course, we have a very strong relationship with local government in Townsville. It’s a staged plan, over the next three career management cycles, the first of which is—  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s a management cycle—how long?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: It’s a posting cycle—every 12 months. The moves occur roughly between December, January and February. This coming posting cycle will see the first of those soldiers that have volunteered, or have been asked to, go to Townsville to have those skills that we are building in the brigade there. To go to your point about shortages in some of our numbers, we are well under our authorised strength in Townsville. So the additional numbers don’t actually fall above the authorised strength in the next two years. That is notwithstanding the fact that the rental market in Townsville is quite tight.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s tight all over Australia—almost at record levels because of massive immigration. Immigration has doubled the previous records, so I understand the dilemma. So what you’re saying is that you understand the housing pressures, but you’re managing that?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes. 

/by

Is Defence Prioritising Desk Jobs Over Frontline Fighters?

,

The shiny generals at Defence headquarters have spent huge amounts of taxpayer money on recruitment, yet the number of people employed has declined.

I’m worried that the Defence Force is stocking their numbers with university educated desk jockeys rather than the fighters we need.

Let’s see how they respond to this on notice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The defence minister has proudly declared this week the Defence Force is growing again. I’ve read what I think is your statement, and I’ve certainly read the secretary’s statement. Is the official one—yes, it is your statement.  

Adm. Johnston: From this afternoon?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Adm. Johnston: Yes, that’s my statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: The last time we heard that we were on a growth path, Senator Shoebridge pointed out you were actually on a shrink path going backwards in personnel. How many infantry sergeant positions do you have across the Army?  

Adm. Johnston: I might invite the Chief of Army to come up to better answer that question.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: While I’m looking for the specific numbers, I would offer to you that the sergeant rank is one of the areas where we are significantly under the requirement. I’ll have to come back to you with those numbers.  

Senator ROBERTS: In June, you confirmed you were deficient by 143 sergeants. You said that you were responding to this with ‘early promotion opportunities’. That just sounds like you may be skipping people ahead without the necessary experience. How many corporals have you early promoted?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t have that number on me. You’re correct that one of the ways of filling those supervisory gaps is to promote people earlier than we would otherwise do. But, in order to do that, we obviously have an obligation, and it makes sense to invest in those individuals in terms of their own development and then, through our collective training, make sure that we step up the rate of experience that they’re able to glean. For example—  

Senator ROBERTS: I think I understand what you’re getting at. They must have the necessary experience, and you want to promote them to give them more experience. I get that. How many corporals have you early promoted? Could you get that on notice, please?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can get you that on notice. I don’t have it with me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Also take on notice the number of infantry sergeant positions you have across the Army.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Will do.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your current headcount for ECN 343, the infantry soldiers?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Again, I don’t have those figures to hand, but we’re doing quite well when it comes to ECN 343 privates.  

Senator ROBERTS: What has the headcount for ECN 343 been over previous periods? Could you put that on notice too?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: It’s been reasonably healthy. If I recall, it’s north of 90 per cent in terms of the fill rates. It’s not an area that’s on the—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like the actual headcount for the last five years, please, including the latest year.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you padding out the Defence Force numbers with non-combat roles to look good on the headline number?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide on notice your headcount for combat versus non-combat roles over the previous five years?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I just want to make sure I get you the right information here. Are you talking about across the entire Army or in infantry battalions?  

Senator ROBERTS: Infantry battalions and Army as well, please.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: So you want a breakdown from ECN 343, which is infantry. There are other infantry ECNs, as well, in our special operations. Would you like those included?  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to know basically how many are actual fighting, operational people and how many are non-combat roles. I want to make sure that we’re not padding figures with non-combat people.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can assure you we’re not padding any figures—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to see that.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Of course, combat in terms of functions, is broader than just infantry. It includes armour, which includes tank and cavalry, combat engineers and artillery and air defence as well as field artillery.’  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re going beyond my capability at the moment  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I just want to make sure—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know how many are non-combat roles and how many are combat roles.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Everyone in a formation is in a combat role. The function that they perform will differ across three functional lines: combat, combat support and combat services support. Obviously, each of those begins with ‘combat’ because we fight as teams but people fulfill different roles in those teams, if that makes sense.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll leave it, as a matter of trust, in your hands. I’d like to know how many are combat and how many are non-combat. I know you’ve just explained that to me, but it doesn’t have a lot of meaning in my mind. I’d like to know what the numbers are, combat and non-combat, if you can give me the flavour for that and explain it.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll endeavour to do our very best. I’ll give you a full breakdown across the Army in terms of combat, combat support and combat service support, and we’ll make sure that you get a breakdown in terms of core and the specifics in relation to ECN.  

Senator ROBERTS: And if you could define the terms, please.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes, we will.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve got no or minimal understanding of the Army, so treat me as completely ignorant.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’d be very happy to sit down with you and give you the army 101 brief, if that would be helpful, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: It may be, but let’s get the figures first. Thank you so much for the offer. 

/by

New Chief of Defence Johnston Faces Integrity Questions

,

Angus Campbell’s DSC (Distinguished Service Cross) is still a live issue and retiring won’t bury it. Now we know Campbell’s replacement, CDF Johnston, was the person who nominated Campbell for his DSC.

Johnston maintains he was just doing what everyone else did at the time. He did not disclose the specific action, with enemy forces in contact, he saw Campbell in that justified a combat award. 

Anyone hoping that there would be new type of direction and integrity leading the Defence Force might be worried that this doesn’t signal a change of pace.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: What about leadership and integrity and truth?  

Adm. Johnston: That was the third in terms of what I understood when you said ‘culture’: leadership is key to culture.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are on the same track. There’s been a long process, revisited over multiple years now, of estimates sessions, questions on notice and freedom of information requests on a particular issue. You’ve been in this room while I questioned your predecessor, Angus Campbell, over his Distinguished Service Cross, which I’m sure you will recall. Admiral Johnston, you were the officer who recommended Angus Campbell for that Distinguished Service Cross, weren’t you?  

Adm. Johnston: I was on the nomination for it, yes, that’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: According to Defence freedom of information request 522/23, you recommended him for that award on 29 September 2011. At that time, the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross required the recipient to be ‘in action’. Admiral Johnston, can you, once and for all, as a person who recommended Angus Campbell for his DSC, clarify what contact with the enemy you saw General Campbell in, in action, that led to your recommending him for a combat medal?  

Adm. Johnston: If I could answer—the nomination was provided to me in my role as the Deputy Chief of Joint Operations at the time. That position has, as one of its responsibilities, to look at the performance of commanders in our deployed forces, of which General Campbell was one at the time. So I progressed the nomination because of the function that I had in Joint Operations Command. I did, as part of that, indicate that the submission of the nomination should be after the period when General Campbell completed his tenure, which was the case. The definition of ‘in action’ that I applied is consistent with that which had been standing for some time, as to commanders—and certainly in General Campbell’s case, I believe, he spent more than 100 days in Afghanistan, as part of his command role, in an area that was classified as a warlike zone.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘A warlike zone’?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was he in a war zone?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And facing fire?  

Adm. Johnston: He was, as part of his duties, rotating through the places where Australian soldiers and others were located, experiencing the same threats as they had in those locations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your definition of ‘in action’?  

Adm. Johnston: The definition I applied is the same as what had been applied by my predecessors and over, I think, eight commanders prior to General Campbell, who had been nominated for a Distinguished Service Cross. It was an individual who is operating in an area where it is a warlike zone and there are threats from hostile forces.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did that definition come into place the day after his nomination? I think beforehand it was direct action.  

Adm. Johnston: The definition changed before his nomination, but the application of what we understood that to be is consistent before General Campbell’s nomination. 

/by

End Secrecy in Defence

,

Transparency and accountability are essential in a democracy, yet this government continues to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, especially when it comes to the higher brass in the Department of Defence.

The refusal to release the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force isn’t about national security—it’s about avoiding embarrassment. We need a process that allows senators to confidentially review sensitive documents, ensuring accountability while protecting the public interest. We must demand a government that serves the people, not itself.

One Nation will fight for our Defence Force personnel to be treated fairly by senior officers. One standard must apply to all.

Transcript

Well, the minister’s explanation is pitiful. Look at paragraph (a)(iv) of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge’s motion. Senator Wong failed to comply. She did not provide the names. Who has been consulted in relation to the release of the report of the 20-year review of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force? Why is the government continuing to hide? This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. This is the government’s response. The claim isn’t that there was anything classified in the report of the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force that Senator Lambie had been seeking; the claim the minister makes is that this report wasn’t meant to be released because the government didn’t want it to be released, not that national security was under threat, not that there was classified information in it. The government didn’t want it to be released because that would be embarrassing and they would be asked to do something about it. That’s not good enough.  

An order to produce documents that passes this Senate is constitutionally superior to acts of law. The government doesn’t get to decide that they can toss those orders in the bin. This is a rare occasion where we get to see the report even though the government refused to hand it over. Credit must go to Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge for pushing this and to their offices for managing to get a copy of the report. Usually, as senators, we’re left in the dark. The government makes a public interest immunity claim and refuses to hand over anything. The government tells us that if this report was released the sky would fall in, that there would be an earthquake that shatters the public interest. Now, as senators, we’re quite reasonable and responsible. We know that truth reinforces truth. While we might desperately want that information we somewhat trust that the government hasn’t lied to our face and that there would be an actual risk to the public interest if the document were published. Yesterday and today show once and for all, yet again, that the government is completely undeserving of that trust.  

The minister’s explanation clearly isn’t sufficient, and the current process for ordering documents is failing the Australian people and the senators seeking information on behalf of the people—information that belongs to the Australian people. To that end, I’ll again be proposing a new, additional way for handling orders for documents. When ministers make a public interest immunity claim, the claimed harm results from releasing the document to the public. There’s a way to make sure this is a win-win. I’ll go through it again. It’s making sure sensitive information isn’t released while at the same time ensuring senators get the information needed to make informed decisions. The way to do this is to establish a process for senators to confidentially review ordered documents without releasing them to the public.  

This proposal may sound familiar to some. I first raised it in 2022, and this Senate supported a reference to the Procedure Committee for inquiry. With respect to the senators on that committee, the response was lacking. The inquiry was given four months to report on the issue, did not seek any submissions and produced the Procedure Committee’s first report of 2023 of a towering two pages. While the committee declined to endorse the proposal, they did confirm that it’s feasible. The committee committed to further report on the process for the order for the production of documents later in 2023. No report was delivered. Imagine that. Given the increased frequency of orders for the production of documents and the nearly blanket ban the government seems to be applying on transparency, it’s time to deal with this issue again. 

This proposal is relatively simple. If the minister makes a public interest immunity claim, they wouldn’t have to release it to the public but they would have to release it to us—the senators—confidentially. A majority of the Senate could then decide whether the minister’s claim is legitimate and the document deserves to be kept secret from the public. It’s true that, just like a normal order for the production of documents, the minister could refuse to hand over the documents to the committee. Since no harm could flow from public disclosure in this process, it would be apparent that the only harm the government would want to avoid would be embarrassment. That gives us a better reason to apply sanctions for noncompliance, which the Senate is rightly cautious to do under the current process. In making a public interest immunity claim the minister would be automatically required to nominate a standing committee to receive the document, and only senators would be allowed to review it.  

I will be submitting a notice of motion with some draft amendments to the standing orders for senators to consider over the break. I welcome their input and any suggestions to make these changes better. The Australian public deserves transparency, and as the Senate, the house of review, we must deliver accountability on this government. Recent weeks in this chamber have shown debacle after debacle. The government is in chaos. Australia has a chaotic government, and the people pay for that—enlisted people and veterans pay for it. The Senate’s scrutiny will help the government to govern and reduce the chaos. We are willing to help you, and that’s what our help will do. The people deserve the truth, openness and accountability. (Time expired) 

/by

Backing Our Diggers Means Holding the Brass Accountable

,

A report revealed from a motion I put into the Senate, that the government kept a helicopter flying for more than 5 years with a defective engine part.

That MRH-90 helicopter that crashed in Jervis Bay without any fatalities was a stroke of luck. Four months later, another helicopter crashed in the Whitsundays, resulting in the death of four Defence personnel. This report reveals that senior “leadership” of Defence was willing to put people’s lives at risk with defective engine parts. The question must be asked – how many other risks were they willing to overlook or explain away?

One Nation backs our Defence Personnel.  The Government can’t claim they do unless they hold senior members of the Defence Department accountable for their failures.

Transcript

I rise to speak on the document produced in response to order for the production of documents No. 200. This order relates to the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash in Jervis Bay in May 2023. The helicopter call sign Bushman 82 was hovering low to water on a training exercise, with divers suspended below, when it experienced a catastrophic failure of its left-hand engine. The helicopter ditched into the water—in a stroke of luck, without any fatalities. Just one month later, Defence gave the MRH-90 helicopter a completely clean bill of health and authorised it to continue flying. The Senate agreed to this OPD in May 2023, requiring Defence to hand over any safety reports and documents in relation to the crash. We wanted to know how Defence had certified the helicopter as safe so quickly after such a significant incident. In defiance of the order of this Senate, the Minister for Defence refused to hand over any documents, citing an ongoing internal investigation, despite the helicopter already being back in the air, threatening lives. The government and Defence advised that that investigation should conclude in October 2023. 

In June 2023, a month after, the Senate reiterated its order for the documents in motion 243, with a new deadline of November in accordance with the advice of the government. We gave them a go. They failed to produce even a response to that order until the Senate sought an explanation in December of 2023. We can see how time marches on and is irrelevant to Defence. 

Now we fast forward to September 2024, 18 months after the crash and nearly a year after the government promised to respond. We finally have a response and documents, yet it is not a compliant response. It’s a redacted version of an executive summary to a single report. The order very clearly specified ‘all incident reports, safety evaluations, briefing notes, correspondence and information held by the Department of Defence, the defence minister or the defence minister’s office’. The executive summary to one report clearly doesn’t satisfy this request. 

Minister, where are your briefing notes? Where is your correspondence? Are you telling the Senate that you and your office had nothing to say about the Jervis Bay ditching? The executive summary is dated 2 August 2024. That’s three months and two weeks ago. Did Defence sit on this report before giving it to the minister? Why the delay? The six pages of redacted executive summary we do have are from the Defence Flight Safety Bureau’s aviation safety investigation report. From what we do have, a few things are clear: 

The engine failure was caused by the rupture of Blade 34 from the High Pressure 1 (HP1) wheel in the High Pressure Turbine (HPT). 

They know the cause. Another quote reads: 

… in 2017, as a result of several HP1 failures across the global fleet, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) issued a NH90 Service Bulletin recommending that operators … replace HP 1 blades with modified blades. 

Another quote reads: 

The investigation highlighted that there was no definitive evidence of the completion and recording of hazard analysis and safety risk assessments related to HP 1 failures during MRH-90 PCS operations. 

Defence decided to keep flying the helicopters without the modified parts and eventually get around to it while failing to consider and document the risk that these things would lose an engine during low-level flight because of this. In 2023, five years after the bulletin was given to Defence, Bushman 82 was still flying in Jervis Bay, without the recommended modified parts. 

This report, while not compliant with the Senate’s order, is important because it again demonstrates Defence was willing to overlook serious risks when it came to this helicopter—risks involving lives. How many other problems with the MRH-90 helicopter did Defence overlook? How many times did they allow this thing back in the air, knowing it would unnecessarily put our defence personnel at needless risk? How many potentially catastrophic issues, like the TopOwl headset, were supposedly mitigated or did Defence just explain away? 

These documents are important because this helicopter should have been pulled from service a decade ago. The MRH-90 should have been permanently grounded after Bushman 82 ditched into Jervis Bay—the latest, at the time, of a series of incidents. It wasn’t pulled from service, and, four months later, Bushman 83 crashed in the Whitsundays, resulting in the death of four personnel: Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Phillip Laycock—Phil, as he was known; troop commander Captain Danniel Lyon; Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent; and Corporal Alexander Naggs. May they rest in peace. Blood is on the hands of the Defence leadership and successive defence ministers who kept this helicopter in the air when it belonged on the ground. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 

Leave granted; debate adjourned. 

News Article from The Australian

/1 Comment/by

Submissions Closing Soon: Defence Honours and Awards Inquiry

Submissions to the inquiry looking at Defence Medals, including diggers getting screwed over and Angus Campbell’s DSC, are closing soon [30 August 2024].

Submissions can be made here: Defence honours and awards system – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)

Let me know in the comments which town you’d like a public hearing to be held in.  Should we bring the inquiry to Townsville? 

/6 Comments/by