Why on earth are we leasing Navy patrol boats from the National Australia Bank?
It’s a strange arrangement – handing over $63 million to one of the “Big Four” to rent vessels like the Cape Inscription.
When I asked for the logic behind this, or even the basic cost of the lease extensions, the answers were frustratingly thin. No one in the room could tell me what it would cost to buy these ships back, or even how much total taxpayer money has been paid to the NAB so far.
This feels like a stopgap measure that has turned into a more permanent, expensive one, and I intend to find out exactly who is profiting from it.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. Australian Defence vessels Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy were reportedly being leased from the National Australia Bank for three years from 2017 for $63 million. Why did the Defence Force ever lease a Navy ship from the NAB, one of Australia’s big four banks?
Adm. Johnston: The Chief of Navy will come to the table. We will be able to explain it in the terms of what the circumstances were at the time, particularly a transition plan, as it was, to the offshore patrol vessels, and where we are now.
Vice Adm. Hammond: As CDF just intimated, there was a patrol boat transition plan which involved Armidale class and enhanced Cape class and Arafura. At that time the intent was to transition to 12 Arafura class offshore patrol vessels. As we’ve gone through the Defence Strategic Review and then the surface combatant review, that plan has changed. The E-Cape has now become the program of record, for the Australian Defence Force and Border Force, for patrol boat capability. We had two Cape class patrol vessels that we were leasing as a stopgap capability. Now that the Evolved Cape class program is the program of record, that program has changed. The initial basis was around a decision between the cost of ownership for an outright purchase and a short-term lease arrangement, and that was negotiated by the Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group. I’ll throw to my colleague Rear Admiral Brad Smith for any further details.
Rear Adm. Smith: Nothing further to add to that—other than that the program has been in place since 2017.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The lease on these Navy ships was reportedly extended in 2020 for two years. What was the cost of that two-year lease extension?
Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice and get back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s no-one in the room who can answer that question?
Rear Adm. Smith: Not at this time.
Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the ships today—the Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy? Are they still on lease from the National Australia Bank?
Rear Adm. Smith: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the agreed residual value of the two ships that NAB can purchase if the Navy ends the lease?
Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll also get that one back to you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the total amount that has been paid to NAB under these leases for both ships, Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy?
Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is the Australian Defence Force leasing patrol boats from a bank that made $7 billion in profit last year?
Rear Adm. Smith: I think Chief of Navy answered that earlier, Senator.
I asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about a decision that has shocked many Australians — the choice not to lay charges over the 2023 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays.
Four Defence personnel — Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock — lost their lives. Comcare’s investigation identified two serious breaches of law, yet charges weren’t pursued. Media reports suggest that decision is now under review, and Ms Sharp confirmed that she is personally conducting that review. It’s ongoing, with no timeline for completion.
I asked why charges weren’t laid when the evidence pointed to potential offences. Ms Sharp explained the prosecution test: first, is there a prima facie case? Second, are there reasonable prospects of conviction? And third, is it in the public interest? She said the evidence didn’t meet the second test — reasonable prospects of conviction. That’s what’s being reviewed now.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today. I’ve got two sets of questions; they’re both fairly brief. Firstly, I want to go to your decision not to lay any charges in relation to the 2023 Defence Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays. Four Defence Force personnel—Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock—died in the crash off the Queensland coast, as you would be aware. Comcare, the country’s workplace, health and safety investigator, delivered a brief of evidence on an investigation to you where they identified two significant breaches of law— category 1 and category 2 offences. Media reporting indicates that the decision to not lay charges may be under review. Is that accurate? If so, is your review still ongoing, or has it been finalised?
Ms Sharp: Thank you for your question, and I’d like to thank the committee for its interest in the work of my office. Before I answer your question, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the loss of lives—the loss of Captain Danniel Lyon; Corporal Alexander Naggs; Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent; and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock, known as Phillip Laycock. I also recognise the grief of their families. Your information is correct. The decision that was made not to lay charges in relation to the briefs that were referred from Comcare is under review. That’s a review I am personally conducting, and that review is ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: When do you expect it to be finished?
Ms Sharp: I can’t give you a date for that. I’ll give it the attention it deserves. It’s an important matter and needs to be done thoroughly.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did you decide to not lay those charges in the first place, when the federal investigator laid a brief of evidence on your desk that very clearly identified potential offences?
Ms Sharp: Prosecutions are taken in accordance with the Prosecution policy of the Commonwealth. This is a publicly available document. It outlines the steps that are undertaken to determine whether a prosecution can be laid. The first step is whether there’s a prima facie case: has there been an offence committed? The second step is: are there reasonable prospects of conviction? This involves a thorough analysis of the evidence contained in a particular brief of evidence. It’s only then, if there are reasonable prospects of conviction, that the third stage of the test—whether the proceeding is in the public interest—is considered. In this case, it was determined that there were not reasonable prospects of conviction, based on the evidence contained in the briefs referred by Comcare.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that what you’re reviewing?
Ms Sharp: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The families want this to go to court. You’d be aware of that, I’d say.
Ms Sharp: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The workplace investigator says this should go to court. The commission of inquiry has had extensive evidence, and you say, ‘No, we aren’t laying charges.’ Why not? What turned you against it?
Ms Sharp: As I said, the evidence that was referred in the briefs by Comcare was considered. On the basis of that evidence, there were not reasonable prospects to convict. I understand the family’s desire for this matter to go to court. All of the things that the family have identified are relevant to the public interest. I can say that if there were reasonable prospects, the prosecution of these charges would clearly be in the public interest. But that’s the third stage of the test.
Senator ROBERTS: Do any of your employees who worked on the referral for this Taipan helicopter crash have any current or previous association with the Department of Defence? You can take that on notice.
Ms Sharp: Not to my knowledge, but I’d have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you feel you have adequate resources and budget to take on this matter?
Ms Sharp: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers; it’s refreshing. Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?
Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?
Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?
Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.
Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed?
Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1768969923789-1e4757f8-0642-406a-bc92-8ae2e9df936a.png6371135Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 14:32:232026-01-21 14:32:29Why No Charges After Four Lives Lost?
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.
Both the Liberal and Labor parties have left Australia unable to properly defend ourselves. As a result, we are entirely reliant on other countries to come to our aid.
One Nation believes we should have a Defence Force that is lethal, capable and well resourced to defend Australia and our approaches, not join forever wars in foreign countries.
In this speech, I share the story of RAAF pilot Daniel Dare, a man with an unblemished record, who has been forced into exile and will be arrested if he ever steps foot in Australia again.
Why? Because the Defence Department was just a few days late in approving his sick leave — and now they want to throw him into a maximum-security prison for not reporting to work while he was dealing with mental health issues caused by Defence.
This story is a clear example of out-of-touch generals and politicians destroying morale and the very people who sign up to put their lives on the line for this country.
No politician has the right to stand up on ANZAC Day and invoke the memory of our fallen if they aren’t willing to call out the gutless cowards in the upper brass who are destroying our Defence Force today.
Transcript
The Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 is an admission of failure on two fronts: the housing crisis and our ability to defend ourselves. Defence Housing Australia is the agency tasked with putting a roof over the heads of our Australian Defence Force personnel, the fine people who serve all Australians. This bill will extend that mission significantly to include housing foreign military personnel. This bill is a flow-on consequence of the housing crisis, a catastrophe.
It has been generated particularly out of concern for the situation in Perth. They, like all of our capital cities, are in an acute housing crisis, with a rental vacancy rate of 0.7 per cent, which is frankly shocking. Only Darwin and Hobart are slightly worse. Perth is lined up to cop the brunt of foreign personnel increases related to AUKUS under Submarine Rotational Force West, which is expected to accept thousands of foreign military personnel and contractors in relation to AUKUS preparations. This bill, though, isn’t just related to Perth. It extends the ability of Defence Housing Australia to house foreign personnel anywhere in the country.
Concerns have been raised about Defence Housing Australia’s ability to take care of our current soldiers. I want to now focus on Defence’s wilful, sustained, ongoing lack of care and accountability. 7 News Townsville reported on the story of Mitchell Connolly, a Townsville soldier who has been asking Defence Housing to fix black mould in his house that has been making his children and pregnant wife sick. After being ignored on all proper channels, he went to the media as a last resort and is now facing retribution for raising those complaints. That goes to the key problem with the Liberal and Labor approach to defence. Boats, submarines and fighter jets are all important, yet the people in our Defence Force are vital, and they are spat on by the upper brass.
To demonstrate this point, I want to read parts of a letter from a pilot who can’t return to this country because Defence will arrest him for being AWOL after they delayed approving his sick leave for a couple of days.
This is from his letter to me:
Dear Senator Roberts
My name is Daniel Dare and I served for more than eleven years as a pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force.
I am writing to ask for your help and to place on the parliamentary record how senior Defence officials handled my case after a serious abuse of administrative power by my Commanding Officer (CO).
My immediate aim is a simple: To be able to return to Australia safely and be with my family and support network, so that I can recover, as I have not been able to return to Australia for over eighteen months.
I am not seeking to excuse my conduct.
I am asking Parliament to consider whether the response was appropriate, proportionate, consistent with what Defence leaders tell Australians about empathy, prevention and member wellbeing.
Like many other ADF members, I joined straight after school.
I deployed in flying and non-flying roles overseas and at home, including the Middle East and support after bushfires, floods and cyclones, and work during Operation Aged Care Assist.
I am grateful for those years and for my colleagues.
My concerns are not with them but with a leadership culture that, when confronted with an avoidable problem, chose escalation over resolution and appearances over duty of care.
In March 2023, after more than a decade of unblemished service, my CO accused me of expressing a negative view of the Squadron to another member.
The allegation was based on a text message I did not write, disseminate, or even know existed. An extremely flawed “fact find” was conducted, which did not include interviewing me.
On that basis the CO attempted to impose a twelve-month formal warning and cancel an already-approved flying instructor posting, despite lacking the authority to cancel the posting and despite the Air Force’s desperate need of flying instructors.
Through later freedom-of-information requests I learned that legal advice was sought by the CO only after the punitive action had begun. The effort was abandoned only when I retained a civilian solicitor: Cameron Niven, of Soldier’s Legal Counsel, who persuaded the CO’s direct superior to drop it due to the deficiencies.
But by then the damage was already done. The episode was plainly maladministration.
It shattered any trust I had left in the organisation, leaving me completely disillusioned and was the point at which my mental health began to deteriorate.
Rather than pursue a medical discharge, I first tried to leave in a way that protected the taxpayer and kept me available if needed.
I applied to transfer to the Air Force reserves from December, totalling twelve years of full-time service, and agreed in advance to repay any service debt.
My new chain of command supported the application.
A delegate in the Directorate of Personnel – Air Force, denied it without even bothering to ring me and initially refused to return the application with his written reasons, in an apparent attempt to prevent me from redressing the denial.
My lawyer Mr. Niven was once again required to intervene, simply to get a document that should have been provided in the first instance. That became the pattern: stonewalling, delay and an aversion to transparent decision-making.
By late 2023 I was on medical sick leave. The grievance and review processes dragged with little substantive progress. As 31 March 2024 approached, being the date for medical review, I requested an extension of sick leave and, as a contingency, applied for long service leave from 2 April.
The application for long service leave was refused, and I was directed to report for duty on 2 April despite documented medical concerns.
Returning under those circumstances would have breached basic work health and safety obligations.
In the absence of a timely decision on my sick-leave extension, I made the difficult decision not to present for duty on 2 April in order to protect my wellbeing.
The response was senseless.
Military and civilian police were sent to my home to arrest me and return me to base in handcuffs, but I was overseas by this point.
The next phase escalated further.
An international pursuit was coordinated, drawing on ADF, Australian Federal Police, DFAT and foreign law-enforcement resources, all at the taxpayers’ expense. Group Captain Maria Brick, then Director of the Strategic Incident Management – Air Force section, coordinated actions; a five-year arrest warrant was issued by Air Commodore Bradley Clarke, Commander Air Mobility Group,
I do not contest Defence’s power to enforce discipline.
I question the appropriateness and proportionality of deploying such resources against one unwell member whose recent maladministration, attempt to voluntarily discharge and medical circumstances were known to the chain of command.
One act in particular crossed a line.
Air Marshal Robert Chipman, then Chief of Air Force, now Vice Chief of the Defence Force, wrote to my private overseas employer in his official capacity disclosing personal information about me and notifying them that I was subject to an arrest warrant under military law.
That letter is now the subject of a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
It is difficult to reconcile such an approach with what Air Marshal Chipman told the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, only weeks earlier, on the 13th of March 2024 about harm prevention, member wellbeing and empathy in leadership.
Publicly, Air Marshal Chipman emphasised avoiding the conditions that lead to ill-health and named empathy as the most important attribute of command.
Privately, he chose the most harmful and destructive punitive options available.
A key fact also emerged through Freedom of information.
Although my sick-leave extension was undecided on 2 April 2024 when I did not present for work, Defence medical approved a further six weeks on 6 April. That determination was not disclosed to me—
Isn’t that deceit?
No effort was made to de-escalate or correct the record. Instead, the pursuit continued as if I had no medical status at all.
With salary withheld and my employment prospects damaged, I had little choice but to pursue medical separation.
That process itself became an unresolvable ordeal.
I was told I needed a Defence medical officer assessment to support approval of sick leave, which would resolve the absence, but I was denied telehealth access while overseas.
If I returned in person to obtain it, I would be arrested and incarcerated before I could be seen.
In April 2025 a medical delegate determined that I was unfit for further service and should be medically separated, with sick leave until separation.
Five days later a separate administrative process was initiated to involuntarily separate me, relying on the record of absence that had already been resolved by the medical decision and commencement of sick leave five days earlier.
Defence appeared to be weaponising the military justice system to maximise harm.
I continue to seek review of that administrative decision, at my own expense through the federal court.
This will unfortunately also cost the taxpayer as Defence will undoubtedly seek to fight it.
My matter was referred to the Director of Military Prosecutions, Air Commodore Ian Henderson, for trial before a Defence Force Magistrate towards the end of 2024, with the prospect of up to 12 months’ imprisonment.
The human cost has been real.
During this period my great-uncle, Leslie, became gravely ill in December 2024 and passed away a few months later.
I asked to return home safely to see him, as we were close and he was dear to me.
This request was denied.
Given the existence of warrants and the charges, it was clear that if I returned, I would be arrested on arrival and held to face a DFM proceeding, without ever seeing him.
I spent Christmas alone overseas and later grieved his death, again alone and far away from family and support.
I am not seeking pity.
I am asking Parliament to consider what this says about the system’s priorities when a member is plainly unwell and clearly trying to resolve matters lawfully.
I also want to be clear about responsibility.
Failing to present for duty on 2 April 2024 was my decision.
I am not seeking to excuse it.
I ask that it be seen in context: an earlier abuse of administrative power, an irrevocable breakdown of trust and disillusionment, deteriorating health, a documented medical basis for leave, and a year-long pattern of escalation rather than resolution.
A response that ignores medical evidence, amplifies risk, and privileges appearances over problem-solving is neither good administration nor good leadership.
I have also raised a concern, currently the subject of an FOI request, that the Air Force may have interfered, formally or informally, with civilian hiring of ADF pilots, namely at Qantas, to manage retention issues.
If true, this would mean that even those who have completed their obligations can face covert barriers to employment.
This matter deserves inquiry and formal answers.
Pilots who serve their country should not be disadvantaged by secret arrangements once their service is complete.
Across the period of my ordeal, I made extensive work health and safety reports about the impact of management actions on my wellbeing, no less than 27 individual reports.
Decisions consistently increased risk and pressure, and the cost was shifted to the member and, ultimately, to the taxpayer.
I am not exaggerating when I say that, due to how this situation was handled by Air Marshal Chipman and his subordinates, it cost the Australian tax payer millions.
On 13 August 2025 I was discharged. In the lead-up I asked for a short administrative extension so I would not be left without income while DVA and CSC claims were processed.
This request was refused. As I write, I am navigating those claims from overseas without income, after a year of withheld salary.
I wrote to both Matt Keogh and Richard Marles, on several occasions, seeking an intervention grounded in reasonableness.
They ignored it.
This is not only about one member.
It is about the credibility of Defence leadership before Parliament and the public.
The ADF cannot rely on deterrence theatre, secrecy and maximal punishment to solve cultural problems.
Strength in leadership is restraint, fairness and good judgement. When the system confuses severity for strength, it looks weak—
it is weak—
It wastes public money, undermines morale, and deters good people from serving.
It also undermines recruitment and retention by signalling that members who become unwell or seek a lawful exit will be treated as problems to be crushed, rather than people to be supported and transitioned safely.
ADF members deserve better processes than the ones I encountered. Taxpayers deserve better stewardship than funding unnecessary pursuits that serve the egos of senior officers, rather than Australia’s interest. The public deserves a Defence organisation whose leaders model the empathy and prevention they commend in public.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Dare
This is what we have to fix if we ever want to have a hope of defending ourselves and housing our defence forces. We have to take care of the Australians who choose to put their life on the line and wear the flag on their shoulder. Thank you, Daniel, and thank you, every member and veteran of the Australian Defence Force. You all deserve far better.
One Nation will be supporting this bill because, without the help of allies, we are completely unable to defend our own country. That’s what’s happening in this country. We need a sovereign defence capability, and that starts with valuing our members—care, not systematic abuse; accountability, not bullying to cover up; and honouring Australian values, starting with mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum. All we want is some fairness, integrity and truth.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GnryZQpP4uw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-27 14:46:032025-08-27 14:46:10Australia Can’t Defend Itself — And the Major Parties Are to Blame
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.
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.
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.png00Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-04-23 09:37:162025-04-23 09:37:20Brereton War Crimes Allegations: A Decade of Controversy and Injustice
The treatment of our veterans has been a national shame for too long.
The government is trying to do something different – trying to simplify and harmonise the many and overlapping rules that govern what veterans are entitled to.
Will their plan or this bill work and achieve that? The only proof will be when it gets up and running.
A worrying development before this bill was passed was a large amendment dropped on the bill late in consideration. It doesn’t give One Nation great hope that the government has done what it needs to fix the treatment of veterans once and for all.
Transcript
One Nation supports measures to simplify veterans’ entitlements. At the moment, it seems to many veterans that they need to be a lawyer just to receive entitlements that should be easily accessible. In this government bill, the Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, it’s difficult to say whether the government’s proposal will meet veterans’ needs for clarity and ease. Until we see the legislation put into action, when the guidance filters its way through to the service agents, as the saying goes: the proof will be in the pudding.
We’re willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to converting three acts, two thousand pages of legislation and more than 800 legislative instruments one act. As other senators have mentioned, it’s not rare for veterans to have claims under all three separate acts. This obviously needs desperate change. Throughout this process, we do not want to see any veterans worse off. One Nation notes with concern submissions that state some changes may have the intention of easier administration not achieving the veterans’ full entitlements. That’s a deep concern. We’ll be supporting the amendments codifying the Senate’s intent that no veteran is left worse off after this bill’s passage.
In relation to the government’s amendment on sheet ED101, we’ve received concerns from the Families of Veterans Guild, as have many other senators, I’m sure. I’ll read them out so that they’re on the record from the impressively confident chief executive officer of the Families of Veterans Guild on this government amendment to its own bill. Why is the government having so many amendments?
The letter is as follows:
After being alerted to the amendment, I’ve read through the detail and have a number of concerns with it which are as follows:
There has been no public announcement or public communication from the Department of Defence or Veterans Affairs about it, and as a result there has been no consultation with the veteran community regarding its content. This amendment proposes a significant structural change to the Defence and Veteran system in Australia. It is arguably a Bill in its own right, and ought to be treated as such. Our view is that it ought to be introduced as an amendment to the Defence Act 1903 and debated accordingly. Instead, it is being added on to the VETS Bill in order to be rushed through the parliament—
Here we go again, Labor rushing. She continues with No. 2:
The intent of the VETS Bill is to harmonise the legislative frameworks that govern the provision of veteran entitlements and supports, it is not to make fundamental structural changes to the veteran system. That is a separate issue—
She says. She goes on to No. 3:
The object outlined in the amendment, “improve suicide prevention”, is extremely broad, unclear, and lacks any insight into tangible work that will be done to achieve the objective. This objective requires significant work to be more specific, focusing on issues we know are challenges in the veteran community like reducing the incidents and rate of suicide among the Defence and Veteran population, and improving the effectiveness of suicide prevention initiatives within this community.
The amendment outlines that the commission only needs to provide two public reports on the status of the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. This isn’t good enough. The reason the concept of the independent body outlined in the amendment received initial support from the veteran community was because for too long recommendations from previous inquiries have been shelved. 700+ recommendations which could have resulted in better health and wellbeing outcomes for veterans and their families were left to collect dust. The amendment ought to compel the commission to report annually to the Parliament, the veteran community, and the Australian public on the status of the Royal Commission’s recommendations until such time as they are implemented and their effectiveness evaluated.
She goes on, under No. 5:
The amendment provides the Minister with the power to direct the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. However, before the Commissioner reports to the Minister (at which point the report is to be tabled) the Minister may vary or withdraw the request. Does this mean the inquiry results are never made public? This point must be clarified.
In No. 6, she says:
The amendment outlines that the commission can inquire into the ‘entire Defence ecosystem’ but doesn’t define what that is. With the amendment providing significant powers to the proposed commission, this must be defined understood and consulted. As it stands, the authority this commission would have could affect more than 5,000 non-profit organisations in Australia who provide support to veterans.
She says, under No. 7:
Veteran families once again are omitted from this amendment, other than a mention that they will be ‘listened to’. The Royal Commission highlighted the important role of veteran families and the significantly implications (including related to mental health) that service and suicide have on them, yet they are excluded from the commission’s remit. Will it require a Royal Commission into the ill health, wellbeing and high suicide rates amongst veteran families before they are taken seriously by their government?
It’s a good question she’s asking. Under ‘our expectations’, she says:
The Families of Veterans Guild supports the establishment of an independent body to oversee the defence and veteran system and the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. However, it fundamentally disagrees with rushing an un-consulted amendment through parliament which could have significant consequences for the system, and the communities within it.
She goes on:
The Guild’s expectations were set by the Minister in his media release on the appointment of the interim Commissioner—
where the minister said:
“Mr Manthorpe will head the organisation and work across government to deliver the establishment of a legislated oversight body by September 2025.
As part of the Albanese Government’s response to the Royal Commission, we have committed $9.5 million of funding, as part of MYEFO, to support its implementation, including:
$5 million over two years to fund the appointment of the Interim Head of the Defence and Veterans’ Service Commission, and to establish a cross-agency taskforce to provide advice to Government”—
that’s the end of the minister’s quote. She goes on:
We expected DVA and Defence to therefore consult with those who could and would be impacted by this amendment. That hasn’t happened.
She said, ‘We are especially shocked by this, considering the unwillingness of the minister and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to support and implement amendments to the vets bill aimed at removing archaic and offensive language, due to concerns it would hold up passage of the bill. Yet an amendment which does bring cost implications and hasn’t been consulted on is deemed acceptable.’ This is the last paragraph: ‘We’d like to see this amendment withdrawn so that it can go through the proper process, including consultation, to ensure it is fit for purpose and reduces the risk of having unintended consequences on and within the defence and veteran community.’ That quote is from the letter from the Families of Veterans Guild, and that’s where it ends.
One Nation is greatly concerned that the government is operating this way and dropping significant changes on the Senate suddenly. We won’t even get time to discuss the bills tonight. We will be voting against this amendment because of those concerns and the lack of consultation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ENiaIhm5Obo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-26 16:25:232025-02-27 17:19:30A Real Solution for Veterans or Just More Empty Promises?
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.
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.
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.
