Posts

Holding the Powerful Accountable

,

In Senate estimates, I asked questions about the Brereton Afghanistan inquiry and its implications for integrity in public office. When Mr Brereton wrote his report, he declared that command responsibility for alleged war crimes did not extend to senior officers or headquarters. That raises serious concerns.

I pressed officials on whether Mr Brereton had close associations with those officers and whether this pattern of judgment affects his fitness to lead the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The response confirmed that while his association was professional, he continued to provide advice on the inquiry—even after becoming commissioner.

Australians deserve confidence that those tasked with fighting corruption are beyond reproach. Transparency and accountability are not optional—they are essential.

What do you think? Should prior involvement in controversial inquiries disqualify someone from heading an anti-corruption body?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: When Mr Brereton wrote his Afghanistan inquiry report he declared that command responsibility and accountability for war crime allegations does not extend to senior officers and headquarters, joint taskforce 633 and the joint operations centre. Did he know any of those officers well, or did he have a close association with any of those officers?

Mr Reed: That report was produced before the National Anti-Corruption Commission began and therefore—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to—

Mr Reed: I’m not in a position to be able to tell you about—

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?

Mr Reed: I can’t advise you on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?

Mr Reed: No, I don’t.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice to ask Mr Brereton, please?

Mr Reed: I’m not sure. Is it relevant?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is, because it’s going to the commissioner’s fitness for the job of heading up the NACC and establishing whether there’s a pattern of behaviour here. There seems to be a pattern of behaviour, from what I can tell.

Mr Reed: I’ll pass to my colleague Rebekah O’Meagher.

Ms O’Meagher: Thank you, Philip. If it assists, in terms of the previous line of questioning, the commissioner has put it on the record that, in terms of that association, it was a professional one, not a friendship. It was a historic—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not doubting that.

Ms O’Meagher: professional association. As to the reasoning of how that error of judgement occurred, those referrals came to us in the third day of our operation as the commission, and the commissioner has explained that he maintained involvement—not decision-making but involvement—because it raised issues in terms of the breadth of corrupt conduct under the act. That was the reasoning. He declared what the conflict was on multiple occasions. He stated how he was going to manage it. And another deputy was the decision-maker for the referrals.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC received any referrals or complaints in relation to the Afghanistan inquiry that Mr Brereton conducted?

Mr Reed: It’s not something I’m going to be able to answer here.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice please?

Mr Reed: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Has Mr Brereton recused himself from the complaints against the Afghanistan inquiry, or does he need the inspector-general to tell him to do that again?

Ms O’Meagher: The commissioner has stated that he will recuse himself, and he has recused himself, from all matters involving that IGADF.

Senator ROBERTS: Has he continued to provide advice to the inspector-general of the ADF on the Brereton report? He has, hasn’t he?

Mr Reed: That’s what we were talking about earlier—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.

Mr Reed: and the answer is yes. But it was advice, not regular or structured but infrequent.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm, Mr Reed, if there have been any complaints to the NACC about the Brereton report? He’s not advising the NACC?

Mr Reed: If it was a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission about the IGADF—

Senator ROBERTS: And the Brereton report.

Mr Reed: he would recuse himself from that matter.

/by

Honour System Corrupted

,

EXPOSED: Our Senate inquiry revealed widespread abuse of military medals by top brass.

Generals received medals for being ‘in action’ despite no records of being under enemy fire.

Our troops deserve better than this corrupt two-tier system.

Transcript

It’s alleged former Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, received a medal for being ‘in action’ when he was never on the ground with the enemy firing on him.

One Nation initiated a Senate inquiry into the military medals system which just finished.

Here’s what I found:

Government plans to pay hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars for equipment like AUKUS Submarines, the Hunter Class Frigates, Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles and F-35 fighter jets.

Yet, Defence is in a recruiting and retention crisis due to low morale.

So we won’t have people to drive that fancy equipment

ADF Personnel are leaving because they don’t feel valued and that’s what my medals inquiry investigated.

A functioning, fair and transparent Honours and Awards system that recognises the sacrifices and achievements of ADF personnel regardless of their rank has never been more important – if we want people to join and stay in our Defence force.

We found widespread abuse of the honours and awards system.

With the upper brass abusing the system.

Top brass is plagued with hypocrisy, a sense of entitlement and low accountability. The head generals give themselves medals illegally for sitting in air-conditioning while soldiers on the ground, in action, under fire don’t get recognised.

Right now, there’s a two-tier system in the Defence force and that needs to be addressed if we want people to join.

Here’s what I recommended from the inquiry:

Firstly, we want those medals to the top brass reviewed properly. It’s not been possible to find when many senior officers who received a Distinguished Service Cross were ever recorded as being ‘in action’ as the award criteria required. The Defence Minister must direct the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal to review all nominations for Distinguished Service Crosses and Medals to Senior Officers from 1991 to 2012 for integrity assurance, with specific assurance the ‘in action’ criteria was satisfied for each.

Secondly, return the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross and Distinguished Service Medal to require the recipient’s conduct to be ‘in action’. The original change was done without support and against recommendations from important groups. The distinction for acts committed ‘in action’ under enemy fire is not trivial. It’s a distinction that should never have been erased from Australia’s highest honours and awards.

Thirdly, establish separate medals as recommended in previous reviews for leaders who distinguish themselves in war-like operations although not in action.

Fourthly, the Defence Minister and Chief of Defence should not have the power to cancel other people’s medals without any right of appeal. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal must have the power to review decisions to cancel medals.

Fifthly, government must make clear announcements and implement policy to establish command responsibility as a binding doctrine in the Australian Defence Force. At relevant times in relation to the Brereton Report allegations, General Campbell held significant, senior command roles over those forces. If the allegations rise to the point that soldiers under his command must lose their medals, many rightly question how General Campbell can be entitled to keep his medal awarded for “distinguished command and leadership” of those same forces.

It’s ridiculous to claim that as Commander one can have both enough command and control over forces to entitle him to an award, yet not enough to make him responsible for allegations on his watch.

We need to clean out the abuse and corruption of the honours and awards system.

One Nation will always back our troops getting a fair go, especially the people who put their lives on the line.

/2 Comments/by

Australia Left Defenceless After Decades of Failures

,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/6 Comments/by

Brereton War Crimes Allegations: A Decade of Controversy and Injustice

There wasn’t much media attention or notice taken when the first ever Brereton ‘War Crimes’ allegation trial began recently.

It’s been 9 years now after the government initiated what has widely been called a witch hunt, and four and a half years since the release of the Brereton Report.

When that was released in 2020, Defence immediately tried to strip 3,000 special forces and enablers of their awards over allegations in relation to just a few. Yet the first court trial from any of those allegations is only beginning now. This is despite over $150 million being spent on the Office of the Special Investigator dedicated to bringing these charges forward.

No guilty verdicts, only one single charge still untested, yet politicians and senior brass threw the reputation of our most elite soldiers under the bus and tarred the service of all ADF in Afghanistan.

I’m not declaring there’s nothing to these allegations, or that anyone is guilty or innocent. That is a decision for our courts and a jury of these soldiers’ fellow Australians properly presented with all of the relevant facts.

The right to the presumption of innocence is fundamental to this country. Veterans and current serving members too afraid of to speak out against the Defence hierarchy due to fear of retaliation, have always told me that the place for accountability, if needed, should be determined in a courtroom, not through a trial by media with verdicts handed down by press conference, as was done with the Brereton Report.

If there is to be accountability for war crimes, that responsibility should flow up to the highest levels of command and politicians, not down. The politicians who sent us to war based on the lie of weapons of mass destruction should be the first to be thrown in jail before the men who threw themselves into the path of bullets and grenades are punished.

As we approach 15 years on from some of the allegations, and 10 years since investigations began, it’s time for governments of all sides to admit this issue must be finally put to rest and remove this dark cloud over people who believed they were lawfully serving Australia.

One Nation will always support Defence Force personnel over the increasingly questionable decisions and claims of politicians and bureaucrats in command. We support the presumption of innocence and we support all Australians having their day in court instead of being indiscriminately tarnished as guilty by press conference.

/6 Comments/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

Defence Deflects and Distracts from Royal Commission Results

,

Just days after the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission published it’s final report, the Government announced it would be stripping medals from soldiers in Afghanistan. Instead of promising to implement the findings of the Royal Commission, the government doubled down on the kind of hypocrisy that is killing people. While some are stripped of medals, the previous Chief of Defence Force, Angus Campbell, still has his medal for commanding those soldiers. One standard should apply to everyone.

To implement the findings of the Royal Commission, we need a complete clean out of the senior people in Defence who let the problem get this bad.

Transcript

Let’s listen to words to my Senate office team today from a brave ADF veteran with a distinguished record of serving our country and now serving veterans across the country. He opens with a quote from British judge Sturgess: ‘Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz hotel.’ Announcing this cart-before-the-horse decision today, just three days after the release of the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide and a day after the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—a day that forever changed the lives of these men and women—and on R U Okay Day in Australia is nothing short of cruel. 

Still, the motives are clear: to divert attention from the failures of Defence Force leadership and from the government and once again shift the blame onto a few men from the SASR who were in action. The timing is no coincidence. It’s a calculated move to protect those at the top while scapegoating those who served on the front lines. If medals are to be revoked from those at the tactical and operational levels for their soldiers’ alleged war crimes from allegations from over a decade ago, ultimate responsibility must rest with the commanders in charge at the time. Accountability should start at the top, with those who approved the missions and made the strategic decisions. Without holding senior leadership accountable, this action becomes nothing more than scapegoating those on the ground. Accountability must start at the top. 

Let’s keep going with the ADF veteran’s words: ‘Accountability in the military is paramount. Yet what we have witnessed is the pre-emptive punishment of a few and a violation of due process. The chain of command ensures accountability at every level, meaning that responsibility for success and failure is shared.’ 

Just my own comment: in business and in sport, accountability is the fundamental quality. Going back to the ADF veteran: ‘Therefore, generals who commanded during these periods, these men, are set to lose their honours and awards. From the commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force, officers who for the most part did not see action but wear medals suggesting they did should face the same pre-emptive punishment. Stripping medals from senior officers reinforces command responsibility and ensures leadership is held accountable for their decisions in command. It upholds fairness and integrity, demonstrating that no-one is above accountability.’ He goes on: ‘Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) establishes the principle of command responsibility, holding military commanders criminally liable for crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew, or should have known, and failed to prevent or punish them. The statute places a clear duty on commanders to control their forces, and failure to do so makes them legally responsible for their subordinates’ actions. In light of this, if soldiers are to be held accountable for alleged war crimes, the same standard must apply to the commanders in charge at the time—from the Commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force. Command responsibility dictates that leadership cannot be insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Yet, after 10 years, the fact remains: no-one has been convicted of war crimes. 

‘This tone-deaf statement and its timing send a clear message from the top of the Defence Force and government. It shows they’ve learned nothing from the declining recruitment and retention rates, the public’s outrage over ADF’s bloated staff ranks and their untouchable status, or the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide. Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.’ 

That’s the end of the quote from that distinguished ADF veteran. He still feels intense loyalty to the defence forces, despite what’s happened. His finished there with: ‘Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.’ Why should he care—he is out? I’ll tell you why he cares. It is because he cares about this country, as well as about the ADF, the veterans and those still serving. That’s why this is so important. 

This affects culture, which is our ADF’s secret weapon. It is its most powerful strategic weapon. I’m not going to talk at length about that; I’ve talked about it before. Think about the culture in the Defence Force now. We’ve learned, apparently, that the royal commission didn’t expect Defence to stonewall vital information and keep it from the royal commission. Why? Surely, it’s better to be open and lance the boil? No, they stonewalled. 

But, then again, we’ve now learned that three months ago a coordination officer from Defence was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross for outstanding outcomes in working with the royal commission. That begs the question: in Defence’s eyes, what are ‘outstanding outcomes’? Here are some questions I asked in question time of Senator Wong—for whom I have a lot of regard—representing the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles. I began by saying: 

Minister, on the recommendation of the then Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, the government will strip distinguished service medals from soldiers for allegations of war crimes that have not been proven in a criminal court, yet the government will not strip the Distinguished Service Cross medal off General Campbell. 

Then I asked her: 

Minister, why do soldiers under General Campbell ‘s command lose medals while he keeps his medal for commanding them? 

I didn’t get a satisfactory response. Then, as a second question, I began with: 

Minister, the Brereton report specifically excluded any findings on command accountability. 

The minister disagreed with me on that, to be fair. I continued with: 

The implementation oversight panel, though, provided independent advice to government that the Brereton report, in doing this, was inappropriate and that senior command accountability must be examined. 

That was the implementation oversight report. So I asked the minister: 

Why are Defence’s most senior leaders being let off scot-free on allegations in the Brereton report and why is your government ignoring the oversight panel’s advice? 

I didn’t get a satisfactory answer. My final question began: 

Minister, the criterion for the Distinguished Service Cross at the time General Campbell was nominated required him to be ‘in action’, meaning in direct contact with an enemy— 

Facing the enemy, being fired upon by the enemy, having actual engagement— 

yet there are no records of General Campbell being in action. 

I asked her: 

Why does your government refuse to have the honours and awards appeals tribunal examine his award? 

Why indeed! I’ve asked that question before in Senate estimates and got nowhere. We will continue. 

We see that Labor is now moving an amendment to Senator Lambie’s motion. My brief reading of it is that the government is watering down Senator Lambie’s fine motion, which calls on the government to ‘urgently publish’ a comprehensive timeline. The government now wants to water that down with an amendment that calls on the government to ‘urgently work towards’ this. There is no commitment. So I want to thank Senator Lambie for this motion. I want to thank her for her work and for speaking strongly for veterans and enlisted people. I want to thank Senator Shoebridge, who has left the chamber, but nonetheless I thank him for his work as well. 

I’ll finish by saying that our most powerful strategic weapon is the Australian Defence Force culture. That includes mateship and accountability—very, very strong. I’ve heard about it from many sailors, airmen and soldiers. They respect it and they understand the power of it. I’ve heard it from officers. I’ve heard it from veterans. I’ve heard it from enlisted ranks. We’ve been watching it unravel for years, listening to soldiers, airmen, sailors, officers, enlisted men and women and veterans. It’s unravelling, yet it’s the key to our defence forces. This is a prize that must be guarded with reverence, yet at Senate estimates I’m disappointed to see that the senior brass don’t seem to understand it. 

Implementation of the recommendations of this royal commission must be sincere, meaningful and informed to restore accountability and to restore culture in the Australian defence forces. We will be watching, as I’m sure Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and others will be. This is the house of review. As representatives of the people we serve, we will be watching and holding the government accountable. We also serve veterans and current forces because they have served us and our country with distinction. We serve all the people of Australia, and that’s why we will be watching to see their implementation of this royal commission. 

/by

Government Strips Medals Over Brereton Report Allegations

,

One day after the anniversary of 9/11 and three days after the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide, the government has decided to strip medals from some junior and mid level officers over war crime allegations in the Brereton Report. Despite this, the former Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, is wearing a medal for commanding those same people he has said should be stripped of their medals.

Accountability starts at the top. Defence Minister Richard Marles stands condemned for his decision and its timing.

Transcript

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong. Minister, on the recommendation of the then Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, the government will strip distinguished service medals from soldiers for allegations of war crimes that have not been proven in a criminal court, yet the government will not strip the Distinguished Service Cross medal off General Campbell. Minister, why do soldiers under General Campbell ‘s command lose medals while he keeps his medal for commanding them?

Senator WONG: I thank the senator for his question. Senator Roberts, as the Deputy Prime Minister has stated to the House of Representatives today, we finalised our commitment to close out the recommendations of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan inquiry report, known as the Brereton report, which was commissioned in 2016. The report found credible information of alleged unlawful killings of 39 individuals in 23 separate incidents. Further, there was credible information of a subculture of elitism and deviation from acceptable standards. It made a broad range of findings and 143 recommendations. As the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined, we have taken final action as a consequence of that report resulting in the closure of 139 of these recommendations.

Two recommendations of the report related to command accountability and the treatment of honours and awards given to commanders during the relevant period. These recommendations relate to a small number of individuals who held command positions during the period in which the inquiry found evidence of unlawful conduct. The Deputy Prime Minister has written to—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: President, on a point of order: the question was very specific about Angus Campbell’s Distinguished Service Cross. Why won’t it be stripped?

The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Roberts. Minister, please continue.

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I was seeking to respond by way of explaining how we are dealing with the recommendations of the report which relate to command accountability. I understand that the Minister for Defence, the DPM, has written to those whose awards were referred for consideration to advise that there has been a conclusion to that consideration of those awards. Decisions that have been made in relation to those awards are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Brereton report. Decisions around command accountability are consistent with those same findings. Obviously we’re not in a position, given the Privacy Act, to disclose the details— (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

Minister, the Brereton report specifically excluded any findings on command accountability. The implementation oversight panel, though, provided independent advice to government that the Brereton report, in doing this, was inappropriate and that senior command accountability must be examined. Why are Defence’s most senior leaders being let off scot-free on allegations in the Brereton report and why is your government ignoring the oversight panel’s advice?

Senator WONG: I will see if I can get any further information to respond to the assertion in relation to the panel because I don’t recall the facts being quite as you assert them, Senator Roberts, but it isn’t in my portfolio and so I will certainly have a look at that. But, as I read out in my primary response, two of the recommendations of the Brereton report did relate to command accountability and the treatment of honours and awards given to commanders during the relevant period. There was an alternative assertion in your question, and that is not the advice to me. We have acted on the basis of and in a manner consistent with those recommendations.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the criterion for the Distinguished Service Cross at the time General Campbell was nominated required him to be ‘in action’, meaning in direct contact with an enemy, yet there are no records of General Campbell being in action. Why does your government refuse to have the honours and awards appeals tribunal examine his award?

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I think that is a slightly different question to the one you asked me, which related to the Brereton report. In relation to the actual awarding of those honours, that’s obviously not a political decision but a decision that is governed within that honours and awards system. I would make the point that these matters have been canvassed at length by, I think, Senator Lambie in a number of estimates, and I’d refer you to those answers, including direct answers—to my recollection, including before the change of government—from General Campbell himself.

/3 Comments/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

Radio Interview: Defence Honours and Awards System Senate Inquiry

,

Thank you to Ben Fordham of 2GB for inviting me to discuss this inquiry. The inquiry aims to look at potentially illegal medals being awarded to senior defence officers, hear from ADF personnel and explore possible improvements to the Defence Awards and Honours system.

If we want people to serve this country, we have to back them and hold their leadership accountable. 

Transcript

Ben Fordham: Well, Australia has a new chief of defence, Admiral David Johnston is in and General Angus Campbell is out. He’s officially stepped down from the role after a rocky six year term. And during that time, General Angus Campbell quickly became one of the most divisive figures in the military. He didn’t do himself any favors when he tried to strip war medals from all troops who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.

The then defense minister, Peter Dutton, was forced to intervene and he reversed that controversial decision. But now a medal on General Campbell’s chest is being put under the microscope at a new Senate inquiry. He was recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross back in 2011. That’s Australia’s third highest military decoration. The DSC is awarded for distinguished command and leadership in action as commander of forces in Afghanistan.

At the time, the criteria for someone to receive the award required them to be in action, meaning to be under direct fire of an adversary. But out of nowhere, three months after General Campbell was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed. The criteria of being in action was changed to in warlike operations. Senator Malcolm Roberts, who will lead the inquiry, says senior officers have abused the defence honours and awards system. Meanwhile, enlisted personnel have to fight for recognition and higher ups downgrade their medals. Malcolm Roberts The senator from Queensland, with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is on the line right now. Senator, good morning to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Good morning, Ben. What a fabulous summary spot on mate, accurate.

Ben Fordham: So what are you suggesting is going on here?

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m suggesting is that these senior officers -the top brass of our Australian Defence Force are looking at medals as a way of rewarding each other, they just seem to think it’s an entitlement that comes with their salary package. But what we’re really looking for is some integrity with regard to the way that the rank and file the serving enlisted soldiers are treated because they’re not getting their medals. And by the way, Ben, I want to thank all ADF people for their service. And I also want to appreciate especially the serving members and veterans who have been working with us to restore accountability over many months in this Australian Defence Force. The pride and respect …

Ben Fordham: I’ll just jump in for a moment and ask you just about General Angus Campbell, because that’s going to be the key thing that people will focus on in this inquiry. As I said, when he was recommended, it was for, well, at the time they said the person who was receiving the award was required to be in action.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, “two way rifle range”. thinking.

Ben Fordham: Well, hang on a moment. Was he in action? Well, yes, he was over there. He was obviously playing a critical role. But the criteria also said you had to be “under direct fire of an adversary”. And that raised a few flags, didn’t it, that people in the military thinking, well, does General Campbell fall into that category?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, no, he doesn’t. He was away from the action. He was in an air conditioned office several hundred kilometers away and quite safe. What’s really galling people is that the same man refuses to remove his own medal after he tried to strip 3000 people who served in Special operations task force of their Meritorious Unit citation because of the Brereton inquiry. So if he was in action and he was commanding them, then he should have stripped his own medal. But he kept his medal and tried to strip it from the from the soldiers who are actually in direct action.

Ben Fordham: Okay. I just want to stick with this criteria for a moment and can you just confirm this? So originally it said that you had to be under direct fire.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct

Ben Fordham: And that’s when red flags were raised and people were thinking, does he really fall into that category? You say he does not. Then three months after he was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed and the criteria changed from inaction to in warlike operations. Is that right?

Senator ROBERTS: That is correct Ben. You’ve said it so well, as I said before, you’ve said it so well today. It’s perfect.

Ben Fordham: Okay. So was he in warlike operations?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, he was in the Middle East. He was in near Afghanistan, near the theater of war. But he wasn’t actually actively involved in the war.

Ben Fordham: Why did they change the criteria?

Senator ROBERTS: Probably to justify his medal because he was awarded the medal incorrectly, is my belief.

Ben Fordham: Okay. I want you to elaborate on that. You believe that the criteria changed to suit General Angus Campbell?

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what it looks like Ben. And that’s what a lot of troops are saying. And they’re saying that the top brass are getting medals, not justified, and they’re missing out themselves down the lower ranks.

Ben Fordham: And there had been requests, people had asked questions when the criteria was in action, people actually requested some details to say, okay, can General Angus Campbell give us some answers on when he was in action and there were no answers forthcoming, right?

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. He was mute. There was nothing coming.

Ben Fordham: All right. So will he appear before this inquiry?

Senator ROBERTS: That’s up to the Senate inquiry to justify. I won’t be leading the inquiry. I will be a participating member on it. But it’s a standing inquiry. Standing committee that’s already got six members appointed, but I’ll be participating in it as an additional participatory member. But that’s up to the inquiry and the Senate inquiry if they want to call General Campbell, they can force him to come. They can subpoena him if necessary. So the powers are there.

Ben Fordham: So how do you sum up his time leading the defence force?

Senator ROBERTS: A shambles, mess. The rank and file – the morale in the Australian Defence Forces is atrocious. Where we’ve seen some pride and respect for the Australian Defence Force. We need that to be restored and the troops who are talking to us and there are many saying we’re absolutely correct and that the morale is low, the turnover is high, the recruitment is falling. We have more people leaving than coming to the Australian Defence Force at the moment. We’re going backwards in numbers and so this is a security matter. It’s an essential security matter, a national security matter, Ben.

Ben Fordham: He really lost the dressing room, didn’t he, Malcolm Roberts, when he decided to strip war medals from everyone who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly. And the Yamamoto principle from second World War says that if a crime is committed in the theater of war by a soldier, then everyone up the line is accountable and responsible. What he did was he stripped medals from – he tried to strip medals from the 3000 and yet hung onto his own. Yet he was commanding the troops he was stripping medals from.

Ben Fordham: And if it wasn’t for Peter Dutton, who was the minister at the time, they would have lost those medals. Thankfully, he stepped in and I’m going to be really keen to see what comes out of this inquiry. So thank you so much for joining us.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome. Ben. Thank you.

Ben Fordham: Malcolm Roberts, the Senator for Queensland with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

/by