During the June Estimates, I questioned the Australian Federal Police (AFP) regarding the high-profile public arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith at Sydney Airport.
Both Minister Watt and AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett claimed that most of my questions had already been comprehensively covered during earlier questioning by Senator Cash. I accepted this at the time and agreed to review the Hansard.
However, the one specific question I wanted answered, which I’m certain was not addressed during Senator Cash’s session, was whether the AFP specifically discussed the location of the arrest with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Instead of providing a direct answer, Commissioner Barrett deflected, citing operational decisions and general stakeholder engagement.
Having since reviewed the “comprehensive” answers provided to Senator Cash, I strongly disagree that my question was covered. I will pursue this matter at the next opportunity.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to effect the arrest before you arrested him?
Ms Barrett: I referred to that in my statement as well, in relation to why and the reasons.
Senator ROBERTS: You had a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions?
Ms Barrett: In relation to what specifically?
Senator ROBERTS: Where you intended to effect the arrest.
Ms Barrett: Those matters are operational matters that were operational decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions before arresting Mr Roberts-Smith?
Ms Barrett: In my statement, I referred to us engaging with stakeholders in relation to that.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about the location in which to arrest Mr Roberts-Smith—yes or no?
CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question.
Senator ROBERTS: She hasn’t answered my question.
CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question. If you’ve got another question you want to ask, please ask it.
Senator ROBERTS: I think it might be better for the commissioner to answer.
CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question.
Senator Watt: Maybe a good way forward—if you take a couple of minutes to read that statement, I think you’ll find that many of your questions have been addressed.
Senator ROBERTS: This one clearly has not been.
Senator Watt: Just in the interests of time: Senator Cash ended up finding that all the questions she was going to ask were addressed in the statement. If there are questions you have that haven’t been addressed already, I’m sure the commissioner would be happy to answer them.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/R5W17JzS3Xc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-10 11:36:382026-07-10 11:36:41The Public Arrest Spectacle: Who Really Made the Call?
In this session, I raised several concerns regarding the heavy vehicle involved in the 2021 rollover near Townsville, which killed Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne.
I asked whether the 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle had entered service overweight, causing the axles to sit on the bump stops, thereby restricting axle movement and reducing roadholding. I also noted that the tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to operate at higher loads and pressures.
Furthermore, I stated that there was no evidence the antilock braking and stability systems had been calibrated for the addition of the fifth axle, the higher tyre pressures, or unique Australian road conditions. Finally, I pointed out that the operator manual, which was compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions regarding safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and entirely omitted recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads.
Defence officials (including Ms. Quinn and Ms. Kuczma) noted that standard contracts include “fitness-for-purpose” and risk-mitigation clauses. While Defence can theoretically choose to accept deviations in specifications under tight timelines, the DDA will maintain independent authority and accountability to manage contracts, enforce compliance, and withhold payments or suspend programs if requirements or safety standards are not met.
In response to my concern that the fatal vehicle’s flaws have still not been remedied, Defence Secretary Ms. Quinn rejected that the department is not focused on safety. She emphasised that Defence takes loss of life very seriously and continually adapts maintenance, acquisition, and operational processes based on new information.
I’ll be watching for the release of the report from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, officers, for appearing again tonight. My question is to the Chief of the Defence Force. On 30 August 2021, a 45M vehicle occupied by Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne failed to take a bend on Dotswood Road near Townsville, rolled and killed both occupants. ‘On 29 August 2025, an investigation was opened into the contributing factors in the rollover’—this is a quote—’that caused the deaths of Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Allan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Anthony Payne and was due to report by 4 March 2026.’ Has that investigation been completed?
Adm. Johnston: I’ve just been joined by the Chief of Army, who may assist me with those answers.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I can confirm that the Defence investigation has been completed and the final report was submitted to Comcare. That investigation was led by the land accident investigation team. That matter is now with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available to me during the period of litigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, did you say ‘not available’?
Lt Gen. Stuart: They’ve been referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available for dissemination during the litigation that is currently ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the outcomes of the investigation that you can share with us?
Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m not in a position to share those outcomes with you while they’re subject to litigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm my understanding of these vehicles? The 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle entered service overweight, resulting in the axles sitting on the bump stops. This restricted axle movement and reduced roadholding. Is that correct?
Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to run at higher loads and pressures. Is that correct?
Lt Gen. Stuart: I have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: There was no evidence of the calibration of the antilock braking stability systems for the addition of the fifth axle, higher tire pressures and unique Australian road conditions. The operator manual had been compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions for safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and did not include recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads. Could you take that on notice, please.
Lt Gen. Stuart: You’re effectively making a series of assertions that may or may not be included as part of the investigation that was undertaken and is currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’ve been advised—some of the design failures or flaws in the vehicle.
Lt Gen. Stuart: Is that a question or a statement?
Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm that?
Lt Gen. Stuart: As I’ve just advised, the investigation is referred to and currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Senator ROBERTS: What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?
Lt Gen. Stuart: I can speak to a whole range of work that we’ve done. We have what you might describe as a generative safety culture, which is modelled on the way that airworthiness and air safety are managed. That is a proactive culture of reporting and continual improvement. In terms of the detail as to some of the things that we have done, I’ll provide some of the outcomes and then I might throw to my colleague Major General Vagg to provide some more. First, the application of data and analytics—that is, to have systems on the vehicle that are able to provide us with both retrospective and predictive analysis as to driving habits, and, therefore, help us understand the risks. Second, we’ve undertaken a review of the training that we provide for soldiers and other members of the ADF to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that we apply what we have learned from vehicle incidents and accidents. As you might appreciate, we have some soldiers who join the army who may not have even a civilian drivers licence. The kinds of conditions that we need to operate vehicles in, include not only the operation of the vehicle but also its tactical employment, whether that’s by day or night, on formed roads or cross country, in any kind of season, weather or terrain. We’re continually looking to update the way in which we train people to ensure that they can operate safely. In the introduction to service, and even before that, is the selection, testing and validation of any major system vehicle or weapon to ensure that it can be operated safely and that we have properly characterised the risks that may accrue to our people, and that we have either procedural, technical or equipment based mitigations or ways of reducing the risk to our people.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of a man called W. Edwards Deming?
Lt Gen. Stuart: I have.
Senator ROBERTS: You would know, then, that he led the turnaround of the Japanese producing crap to producing the best products in the world.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m generally aware of what Mr Deming did.
Senator ROBERTS: He said that as much as people in management like to blame or inherently try to blame people for their problems, 95 per cent of the problem is the system, which only the manager can fix. What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?
Lt Gen. Stuart: I have a couple of points before I’ll hand over to my colleague. Firstly, I’m accountable for everything that happens in the Army and the safety and wellbeing of all our people. Secondly, we operate a whole range of different systems, and in every case we seek to ensure that our people are systemically supported. We have a multifaceted approach to ensuring that equipment is safe, whether it’s technical assessments, predictive analysis, the way in which we train our people, or the assurance of the safety, the maintenance and the supply chain systems. It’s a holistic approach to assuring capability, assuring that those capabilities are fit for purpose, assuring that they are safe for our people to use, and assuring that our people are trained, educated and experienced to ensure that risks are managed so far as is reasonably practical.
Major Gen. Vagg: I’ll reinforce what the Chief said. He is the land worthiness authority. Land worthiness is a system of checks that looks at current, in-service capabilities and also future-looking capabilities that we’re going to introduce into service. We’ve been developing that system over several years now. It had an interim operating capability in March 2020, and we’re on track to achieve a final operating capability in December of this year. That process is backed by a series of assessment tools, such as data trend analysis, that identify high-risk capabilities but also new capabilities, and we form an independent board which interviews users—from soldiers to managers, the procurement agency and other assurance agencies—and validates that the capability is fit to do what we’ve acquired it to do and that it’s fit and safe to operate, as the chief discussed. That board is made up of a series of retired one-star and two-star officers from across the services who have no direct linkage to the capabilities. They have no independent equities or personal equities to that capability. They’ll provide independent advice to the landworthiness authority and a series of recommendations. Those recommendations are then heard through the army operating system and implemented through our capability development and capability management processes.
Senator ROBERTS: My next question is for the deputy secretary of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Chris Deeble, or Nadine Williams or both.
Ms Quinn: There are two different activities. There’s the capability acquisition group, for which we have a witness, and then there is the whole-of-government review of the defence delivery mechanism. So, depending on where your questions go, we may have different witnesses.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. There’s been much discussion and evidence provided to me and the parliament of the knowing approval of defective capability leading to injuries and fatalities. What does the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group do?
Ms Kuczma: I think the question is quite broad. Our job is to acquire capability that is fit for its intended purpose and deliver that to the service that requires it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s pretty succinct.
Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts—sorry to interrupt. I know and recognise your advocacy for the safety of our people. If you do have evidence that suggests that we have not treated safety in the introduction of equipment into service, I would welcome that being provided through our minister so that we can both review that material and come back to you with insights that answer those areas of concern that you have identified.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What actions have been taken in the design of the Defence Delivery Agency to ensure that non-compliant capability is not accepted for service?
Ms Quinn: I’m happy to give a high-level answer. There has been an ongoing review of the acquisition system within the Department of Defence that goes across all phases of the acquisition program, from defining capability to acquiring and sustaining it, and the feedback loops throughout that whole system. In that process, there’s been an identification of some improvements we can make—some structural, some behavioural and some about being clearer on our accountabilities. So they do fall into different categories. One is just being very clear about the accountability for the different elements of those phases of any capability acquisition, development and sustainment. The second is to improve the professionalism of the staff at all three stages of that process. That includes having a specialised workforce, particularly through the Defence Delivery Agency—I keep using the acronym DDA. That’s about professionalising the workforce, working with other elements of the Defence establishment, including industry in particular, to be able to ensure that we can improve the acquisition. Safety, of course, is one of the elements of the process. I’ll pass to Nadine Williams if she’s got anything to add.
Ms Williams: I wouldn’t add much to that. As the secretary has said, the design of the Defence Delivery Agency has considered the matters that she’s raised. We’re going through quite an extensive process of looking at how the Defence Delivery Agency is constructed, how professionalism might be better articulated through that construct and how accountabilities will ensure that there are really clear responsibilities for all elements of acquisition as it’s currently articulated.
Ms Quinn: The concept of contestability in decision-making has been a theme as well. One reason to be very clear about the stages of the process is to ensure there’s very good contestability at the different stages, so that it’s a multidisciplinary view of capability development, acquisition and sustainment. Having more voices, but with clear accountability, will improve the delivery system overall.
Senator ROBERTS: The current contracts for defence procurement include clauses that say that Defence does not pay any additional cost for a non-compliant capability in the supplier’s product.
Ms Quinn: I think it would be hard to generalise across all the different types of contracts that we have, because there are a great deal of different contracts. We look at value for money, operational capability and risk sharing. Value for money also includes ensuring that, if faulty products are provided, there’s recourse for such an outcome. So our contract management would include risk mitigation activities. I’ll just see whether Ms Kuczma wants to say—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. By ‘risk mitigation’, you mean you’ll accept the vehicle or the piece of hardware and make a risk assessment as to how to use it without fixing it?
Ms Quinn: We certainly do that, but also, if we’d specified a certain capability—and the contract was clear on that—and we received a capability that did not meet the specifications, then there would be avenues in the contract to rectify such a situation.
Ms Kuczma: In general terms, we have a contracting suite that includes fitness-for-purpose clauses, which look at the outcome that’s required under the contracts. Generally they exist in our contracting templates to ensure that we can have recourse should those deliveries not meet our expectations.
Senator ROBERTS: Can they be bypassed if there’s a rush?
Ms Kuczma: We have the ability to accept supplies and work through deviations, or things that don’t meet the requirements, should we choose. But our purpose is: fitness for purpose, receive what’s required contractually and deliver.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Defence Delivery Agency have the authority to stop delivery, suspend programs and withhold payment where capability does not meet contract regulation or legislation?
Ms Quinn: It is the intention that the delivery agency will have independent accountability and authority for contracts and manage those contracts in the interests of Defence, in terms of delivering the capability we need.
Senator ROBERTS: You just talked in terms of future tense.
Ms Quinn: Existing contracts will be novated to the delivery agency, as appropriate, so existing contracts will also have that ability—as is the case now in the Department of Defence. There will be no step back from the ability to manage delivery or to meet specifications, including safety concerns.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand from Lieutenant General Stuart that there’s no comment yet on the reports of the fatal accident, but it would seem to be—I may be wrong here—another example of failure in the military procurement process, as it appears that recent inspections of the vehicles show that the problems have still not been remedied, placing drivers and passengers of these vehicles at risk of death. Why?
Ms Quinn: To the first part of that question, what I heard in evidence was that the investigation has been provided to the public prosecution. It’s not available to the public, but there’s certainly a process going through to look at the investigation and see whether there are next steps that need to be taken. We also heard about the implementation of a lessons- time. So the characterisation that the department isn’t focused on it, or the Army is not focused on it, I wouldn’t accept. In high-risk situations, with the activity that’s undertaken across the Defence enterprise, there is the possibility for loss of life. The department and the services take that very seriously and focus on ensuring that, if something does happen, lessons are learnt, processes are put in place and improvements are made, and that includes into the development of capability, in terms of the acquisition and sustainment of capability—because some things are to do with maintenance—and the rectification of problems. As a layperson prior to joining this department—there have been instances of things retired for a whole set of reasons. The system does respond to new information to ensure the safety of serving men and women.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/jlyRWaEvRpg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-10 11:13:362026-07-10 11:13:40Fatal Army Rollover: Was the Vehicle Defective?
During Estimates in May, I questioned the AFP on their treatment of Ben Roberts-Smith.
While we welcome the investigation into media leaks, the AFP still refuses to explain the so-called ‘operational decision’ to arrest him on a Sydney tarmac in front of his two daughters, rather than in Brisbane.
After more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars spent investigating alleged war crimes, the AFP has not secured a single conviction. It’s hard to reconcile that extraordinary expenditure with an outcome that has delivered nothing but reputational damage and prolonged uncertainty for one of the nation’s most decorated soldiers.
The handling of this case raises serious questions about priorities, accountability, and whether such extraordinary resources have been justified by results.
This government needs to ask itself why it sends Australians to war if it then spends hundreds of millions tearing them down when they come home.
Transcript
CHAIR: I understand Senator Roberts has got a couple of follow-up questions from the statement. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your statement. It’s very clear and comprehensive. I’m very pleased to see that you’re going to investigate the source of the leak to the media, because it’s not fair that one of our most decorated warriors is being subjected to a trial by media. We can’t hold you responsible for that, so we’d like to see the results of the investigation. Thank you. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone—well, before I get onto that, midway through the second page, you say: The reason to arrest the individual in Sydney and not Brisbane was an operational decision … What do you mean by ‘operational decision’?
Ms Barrett: It was based on operational factors. I said it was ‘an operational decision that was determined after discussing with relevant partners’.
Senator ROBERTS: So an operational decision in terms of getting the assets in the right place to do the arrest?
Ms Barrett: I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.
Mr McCartney : If you go to the front of the commissioner’s statement, she makes it fairly clear that we need to be careful with our language. This matter is before court, and we’re at risk, if we talk more about these issues—
Senator ROBERTS: I respect that, yes.
Mr McCartney : If we talk more about these issues and information is ventilated through this committee, we run the risk of potential impact on a fair trial. There were a range of operational matters, like the commissioner’s discussed, but, taking into account that balance and trying to be helpful to the committee, we’re going to err on the side of caution and say that these operational matters may be relevant to the court case so we’ll decline on answering that one.
Ms Barrett: We’ve really tried to provide as much information as we can—
Senator ROBERTS: And, as I said, it’s been comprehensive.
Ms Barrett: in the statement, to be as helpful as we can. As I said at the outset, we understand that of course it’s of significant interest to the public, but we need to balance that with ensuring that there’s a fair trial.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got safety to consider as well. Okay, now I understand what operational decision means. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to affect the arrest?
Ms Barrett: Are you asking me specifically or the AFP?
Senator ROBERTS: The AFP.
Ms Barrett: Again, I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.
Mr McCartney : In the division of responsibilities, the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to prosecute charges and offences. Once those charges have been affected by operational agencies, such as the AFP, or as OSI did in this case—they were aware of the location being in New South Wales and Sydney. In terms of being aware of the exact location at the airport, I will take that one on notice and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my final question, Minister. The commissioner has clarified some misrepresentations in the media, which is appreciated. Perhaps you could clarify another comment in the media that so far your predecessor government, the Morrison government, and your government have spent, supposedly, $300 million or more on prosecuting these investigations. So far you’ve got two men charged, as I understand it, and no-one convicted.
Ms Barrett: Sorry I missed that last bit.
Senator ROBERTS: No-one has been convicted yet. I don’t think anyone’s gone to court yet, have they?
Ms Barrett: There are two matters before court.
Senator ROBERTS: Before the court, yes, but I don’t think they’ve actually started trying them. This is a question to the minister. Is this action to justify more funding?
Senator Watt: Is what action to justify more funding?
Senator ROBERTS: The arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith?
Senator Watt: That’s a very big statement to make, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to clarify this because the commissioner has done a very good job in clarifying media misrepresentation.
Senator Watt: I’m not sure about you, Senator Roberts, but I and our government have full confidence in our police forces to make good decisions when they’re deciding who to charge and why. I’d be very concerned if you’re suggesting otherwise.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not suggesting the AFP.
Senator Watt: We don’t interfere with the decisions of the AFP as to who they charge and for what. That is an independent decision, as it should be.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, you’ve answered my question. I’ll just say again, Commissioner, thank you for your summary—excellent. Thanks, CHAIR, for your indulgence.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/9RupEOq51gg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-09 11:31:102026-07-09 11:31:14An ‘Operational Decision’ or a Media Stunt?
After everything that’s unfolded around Ben Roberts-Smith, it was refreshing to hear the War Memorial confirm his Victoria Cross display remains untouched, his plaque updated only with factual context, and that the presumption of innocence still applies.
That principle isn’t optional – it’s the foundation of justice.
Transcipt
CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Anderson. Senator Roberts, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here and thank you for such an uplifting opening statement. That’s wonderful that you’re celebrating that. My questions are fairly brief. Mr Anderson, can I confirm you have left the Ben Roberts-Smith VC display in the Hall of Valour in the same condition it was before his arrest while updating his plaque to include the passage: In April 2026, Roberts-Smith was charged with five counts of the war crime of murder. The legal process is ongoing.
Mr Anderson: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I confirm that on 10 April 2026, in a media conference at the Australian War Memorial, you made the following statement: The most important thing that all of us can do now is allow justice to take its course; to start with the presumption of innocence.
Mr Anderson: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the presumption of innocence still the overarching principle guiding the Australian War Memorial in the continued display of Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC exhibit in the Hall of Valour?
Mr Anderson: I think the overriding principle is one of fact. He’s in the Hall of Valour because of his actions in Tizak on 10 June 2011. Those are the circumstances that we speak to in the Hall of Valour. We’ve updated, as we always do, the panel. Since 2023, we’ve been updating the interpretive panel with the facts as they become known.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s almost as uplifting to me, hearing that you believe in fact and make decisions based on data and fact, as your opening statement. That’s wonderful. Final question—I want to thank you, Mr Anderson, for reminding Australia that Ben Roberts-Smith has a presumption of innocence and for treating his service with the respect it deserves. I have nothing further, Chair. Thank you.
CHAIR: That is very efficient of you, Senator; thank you.
The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 shifts defence review responsibilities to a new joint committee. Although it creates an odd dynamic for the remaining foreign affairs and trade committee, I agree that a dedicated committee is necessary.
The AUKUS alliance is the largest infrastructure spend in our nation’s history. Taxpayers deserve respect and absolute transparency, especially when everyday Australians are struggling.
Right now, there is a distinct public perception that this submarine deal is simply too expensive, particularly while the government concurrently executes a $3 billion fire sale of defence assets to fund its runaway spending.
I asked the Minister a direct question: Why wasn’t this asset sale run past the new committee? Minister McAllister gave a predictable answer, claiming you can’t refer current decisions to a committee that hasn’t been established yet. As it stands, membership on this new committee is subject to a cosy agreement between the Labor and Liberal party whips. This “uniparty” ticket effectively locks out the 50% of Australian voters who do not support either of these parties.
When I questioned why membership was restricted this way, the Minister claimed the Prime Minister would appoint non-government members in consultation with parliament. I must ask: Is this the same Prime Minister who gutted my staff while leaving compliant crossbenchers alone?
Too often, our committee system is a sham designed to protect the government’s narrative rather than find the truth. We saw this with the Select Committee on Information Integrity, which was nothing more than a Labor-Greens stitch-up designed to deplatform critics of net zero and control political speech like a totalitarian regime.
I moved an amendment to guarantee wider parliamentary representation, which would ensure automatic inclusion of Labor and Liberal parties and guaranteed seats for minor parties, including One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens.
With trillions of taxpayers’ dollars on the line for defence spending, we need deeper scrutiny, not a bipartisan shield to keep the public in the dark.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 takes defence review from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and puts those responsibilities into a new joint committee on defence.
I have two questions for the minister, but I want to speak a bit more before putting those questions. Aside from this leaving a rather strange committee comprising trade and foreign affairs, this is a necessary measure. AUKUS is the largest defence or infrastructure spend in Australian history. Oversight of this program is absolutely essential. There’s a perception amongst the public that the submarine deal associated with AUKUS is simply too much money at a time when the public are struggling, and the government is coincidentally selling off $3 billion in defence assets to fund its profligate spending. That decision should have been run past the new committee, surely. Why wasn’t it?
One Nation supports the AUKUS alliance, yet more respect should have been shown to the taxpayers to explain the spend, and more oversight on that spend was needed. That is why One Nation is moving a motion today to amend the bill to include wider representation on the committee. My amendment includes a place on the committee for at least one representative from each minor party—One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens. The ALP and the Liberal Party are represented automatically.
There’s a perception that the committee system is not designed to get to the truth but, rather, to get to the government’s version of the truth. We’re seeing this process at the moment with the sham Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, which was established to prove that the critics of net zero are all lying and need to be shut up and deplatformed with misinformation and disinformation legislation. That’s the purpose. It’s a Greens and Labor Party stitch-up to control political speech in the finest traditions of totalitarian regimes throughout history, and we can see that in operation in every hearing of that committee.
Having representatives from every parliamentary party will ensure that all political opinions are represented on the committee and that witness lists and inquiries conducted by the committee reflect a diversity of perspectives. The uniparty unity ticket on major issues is making the public feel that they’re just not being listened to, that the people are not being considered. It’s not an Australian law that there shall not be taxation without representation, yet this Labor government is making One Nation’s many supporters wish there were such a law here. The government is to spend several trillion dollars on defence by the time a submarine contract is completed. This needs wider and deeper scrutiny for the taxpayers’ benefit and for the nation’s benefit. Membership under this bill is subject to agreement between the government and the Liberal Party whips. Isn’t that cosy?
Senator Shoebridge: Doesn’t that make you feel safe?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes! That may serve to keep out the other parties unless the bill is reworded to protect the interests of the one half of Australian voters who currently do not intend to vote for the uniparty. You’re leaving out 50 per cent of the population. My amendment includes the votes of people who didn’t vote for the uniparty. Minister, my first question is: why is the membership of the committee expressed in a way that would allow only two parties to serve on the committee at the discretion of those same two party whips?
Senator McALLISTER: That inaccurately describes the legislation. The legislation sets out provisions for the appointment of government members and non-government members. As is the case presently for the PJCIS, the Prime Minister of the day would make an assessment in consultation with the parliament about the specific appointments for the non-government members.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that the same prime minister who took the staff of some of the crossbench, decimated our staff, actually intervened and sacked some of my staff, gutted our staff, and left the other crossbench alone because they generally vote with him? Is that the same prime minister? And why was the decision to have a fire sale of defence assets not run past the new committee? Surely bypassing the committee and just waiting a short while would be in the interests of the community.
Senator McALLISTER: The intention in establishing this committee is to provide a forum for oversight of a range of matters, and the scope of the committee’s work is set out in the bill. I think, self-evidently, it would not be possible to refer decisions that are being taken now to a committee that is yet to be established, and the establishment of the committee depends on the debate that we’re having in the Senate right now.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, who selects the additional members?
Senator McALLISTER: This is set out in the legislation, but the Prime Minister consults with recognised political parties in the House of Representatives. I will seek clarification, but it is also the case that the members of the Senate are appointed by resolution of the Senate on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Senator ROBERTS: So, as Senator David Pocock said, it’s a stitch-up.
Senator McALLISTER: I think it’s an unusual proposition to put here in the Senate chamber that a vote of the Senate is an illegitimate way to appoint a committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Only on candidates that the government puts forward—what could go wrong!
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): There are other amendments. If there are no further questions to the minister, Senator Roberts, do you want to put your amendments? Do you wish to speak to them?
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve spoken enough, thanks. I move my amendment on sheet 3634: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:
(2) The Committee is to consist of up to 13 Committee members and must include at least:
(a) 2 Senators who are Government members; and
(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members; and
(c) 2 Senators who are Opposition members; and
(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Opposition members; and
(e) 1 Senator or member of the House of Representatives from each minority party. Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5. (3) In this section: minority party means a party that:
(a) is not part of the Government or the Opposition; and
(b) has at least 5 members in the Parliament.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): The question is that One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3634 be agreed to. The committee divided. [13:25] (The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)
Beyond simple funding gaps, the medical, psychiatric, and legal challenges confronting veterans reflect deep-seated systemic failures.
The government and “top brass” of Defence are failing to manage and “mend” those who have served.
Standards are ignored. The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash is a primary example where warnings were reportedly ignored, leading to fatalities.
There is a disconnect between the “top brass” and rank-and-file members. The government overriding the findings of the Senate inquiry into Defence honours and awards is evidence that the concerns of service members are being ignored.
The veteran community is feeling “lost and broken,” struggling with loneliness, anger, and vulnerability. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide provides a backdrop to this desperation.
The “shambles” within the ADF leadership threatens the security of all 27 million Australians. By betraying the “heart” of the ADF, the effectiveness of the entire force is compromised.
Reform is needed and includes: ➡️ Enforcing honesty and “fair dinkum” treatment of veterans. ➡️ Holding senior ADF personnel, government ministers, and bureaucrats accountable for their decisions. ➡️ Restoring the standards and values that protect the lives of service members.
These failings are killing people.
Senior levels of the Australian Defence Force must be held accountable.
And until this is addressed, this issue will never be fixed.
Transcript
I support Senator Lambie’s motion and thank her for it. This is urgent. This is a crisis. This is growing. I want to talk more broadly about how to properly fix the system, and I commend Senator Lambie and the others who’ve talked about the system. The government is not managing vets, and this has led me to support Senator Lambie. The situation is critical. It needs action, because the neglect is piling issues on issues on issues for ADF members and veterans, and for Australia. This reflects on Australia. The Romans said, ‘We send them, we bend them, but we don’t mend them!’ That could be said of the ADF. Men and women are getting desperate. They’re feeling pain, hurt, loneliness, anger, desperation and vulnerability. They’re feeling lost and broken. They’re very concerned about their mates. We have people coming to us almost daily with legal problems caused by Defence, with medical problems or with psychiatric health problems. These are serious issues. They simply need honesty, mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum.
These men and women have served our nation here and overseas. They deserve our support. What will it take? The government hasn’t cared. Although I commend Senator Chisholm for what he just read out, it needs to go far deeper. The government has made this an urgent issue. The findings of the recent Senate inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system were clear. The government came out and just did what the top brass wanted it to do— overrode the whole lot. It listened to people and then ignored them.
There were the Taipan deaths. After our warnings, after Senator Shoebridge’s warnings, after the previous crash— in which, fortunately, no-one died—the chopper was faulty. The chopper model was faulty. The heads-up display was faulty. ADF top brass ignored the standards and now they’re trying to hide it. I once listened to a very experienced senior ADF member who had top service in Vietnam and had risen to a very senior rank. He said that 70 per cent of the deaths of Australian soldiers in Vietnam were due to breaches of standards, which shows that Defence measures breaches of standards. Now, here we are with the Taipan chopper fatality, ignoring standards. The ADF senior brass is ignoring standards.
We’ve had a royal commission into veteran suicide. We’ve got the ABC, funded by taxpayers, defaming Heston Russell, who did a marvellous job in Afghanistan. When they were found guilty of defaming him, there was no apology. This man serves and then is targeted at home. Defence equipment purchases are hopeless, and people know it. What I’m saying is that this is systemic. It’s not just about dollars, Senator Chisholm—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Hodgins-May. It’s about accountability at the senior levels of the Australian Defence Force. Until that’s fixed, this will never be fixed.
This shambles is killing people. Vets simply want to be heard. They want their issues addressed, and they want senior ADF responsibilities to be fulfilled. There are 27 million Australians whose security depends on senior ADF personnel. That security is at risk because the key to our Australian Defence Force—the heart, the mateship, the truth—is being attacked and betrayed. Costs are going up; results are coming down. This needs to incorporate a systems approach including senior ADF personnel, who set the tone, and including government ministers and bureaucrats. It’s an enormous problem, with the security of 27 million Australians at risk.
In November, the government officially admitted defeat. The “horrific” Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal) Bill has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper – a win for every member of our Army, Navy and Air Force.
This all started with a One Nation motion to inquire into the honours and awards system. Our veterans stood up, presented the facts and spoke with such strength that the “top brass” could no longer turn a deaf ear. It is a credit to our country that those who defended us were willing to stand up once again to protect the morale and mateship of our ADF.
One Nation will always hold the senior brass accountable. We will not let them kill the spirit of our forces or compromise Australia’s security.
To our veterans and currently serving members: You won. We are proud of you and we will always put Australia first.
Transcript
Our veterans won. Our Australian Defence Force members won—people in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. The government admits defeat on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill, which has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper. That’s what this motion’s about. This all started with a One Nation motion that I moved in the Senate to inquire into the honours and awards system.
We supported the veterans who spoke so strongly and so well at the inquiry. They’re a credit to our country not only for their service but for the way they stood up and explained their case. They earned my admiration yet again. They earned my respect yet again. They based their submissions and their witness statements on data. They gave us hard, concrete examples. Then the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal spoke in the inquiry. They spoke clearly, strongly and with strong evidence. Then Defence ignored it, and the government ignored it. You turned a deaf ear to it. I want to thank the veterans again for their service and for standing up. I bet you never thought you’d have to stand up in your own country that you defended, but that’s what you’ve done. Thank you so much for that.
With our political support, the veterans and the current serving members won. The veterans won, and I thank the Senate for that. I thank all the members of the Senate who backed us on this from the start. We are with you, veterans and current ADF members. We will continue to hold the Defence senior brass accountable and to stop the Defence senior brass from killing morale and killing the key to our defence forces that is our mateship. The Defence top brass and the government are killing our defence strength.
Australia’s security is One Nation’s top priority. This amendment bill has to be discharged to maintain the morale of our gallant armed forces. That means supporting our veterans and currently serving Australian soldiers in all the defence forces. We will continue to support you.
One Nation supports this motion to discharge this horrific bill from the Notice Paper. Veterans have won and currently enlisted Australian Defence Force members have won. I want to make it very clear: One Nation is proud to serve our veterans and Australian Defence Force members. One Nation will continue to put Australia first.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Xk8iR7wBqVI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-31 18:56:402026-03-31 18:56:45Defending Those Who Defend Us
During the February Senate Estimates, I asked questions of the ADF about the tragic case of LAC Andrew Armfield.
From what I’ve been told, the facts are damning:
Mandatory suicide management policies were ignored after his first attempt.
Evidence suggests FOI redactions were used to smear Andrew’s brother, a whistleblower, to protect the ADF’s reputation.
Senior leadership was briefed on “media risk” while claiming elsewhere they were unaware of the situation.
It’s the same old story: The top brass is more worried about bad PR than the lives of our sailors, soldiers, and aviators.
Mateship and trust are strategic assets, yet you can’t have either without the TRUTH.
The ADF leadership has taken my questions “on notice.” I’ll be holding them to it.
Our service members deserve justice, not excuses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard today that people are important, and that’s reassuring. My understanding is that in the ADF mateship and trust are of strategic importance. They’re strategically significant. Going to safety and trust, I’d like to get to questions that relate to the way that the ADF has mismanaged the suicide of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield and failed to provide him with the support he needed after his first suicide attempt in June 2011. Are you aware that the royal commission transcripts dated 6 March 2024 and a ministerial background brief from the Deputy Chief of Navy, Commodore Ray Leggett, to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022, copied to Vice Chief of Defence Force David Johnson and Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell, warned of negative media risk if Mr Armfield’s story became public?
Adm. Johnston: Of course it is very difficult for us to talk about the individual circumstances. As we have explained to you before, we can talk around the support that we are doing to improve suicide awareness, our proactive response to reducing the prevalence of it in the force. Mr Armfield’s circumstances were very much a part of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. For officials to talk on the particular nature of his circumstances, there is very limited that we can say without his authority to do so. If it is helpful for you to have officials come forward and just explain how we are responding to the types of circumstances that Mr Armfield experienced and what we are doing to improve our response to it, I would be very happy to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll point out that Mr John Armfield has been involved in developing these questions. We got the data from him. He’s happy for us to talk about it.
Adm. Johnston: That might be true of what he’s provided to you, but that’s not an authority that we have from him.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask again: are you aware that you were copied as Vice Chief of Defence Force on the royal commission transcripts?
Adm. Johnston: I am aware of Mr Armfield’s transcripts, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that ministerial brief, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by then Vice Chief of Defence Force, yourself, claiming you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation was incorrect as you had been copied in?
Adm. Johnston: Sorry? I’m just not clear on your question about which part you mean was incorrect.
Senator ROBERTS: The ministerial brief to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022. Given that brief, which you said you got, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by yourself claiming that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation?
Adm. Johnston: My comment to you was that I’m aware of the transcript of Mr Armfield’s evidence after the royal commission had occurred. I would have to go back to my own testimony of the evidence to be able to answer that question for you.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s claimed that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation, but you were aware.
Adm. Johnston: Mr Armfield appears directly prior to me appearing as a witness. I heard his evidence. I would have to check the circumstances of that question. I heard the evidence that Mr Armfield gave, because he appeared immediately prior to me on the morning that I appeared at the royal commission. If you could allow me to go back and clarify the question you’re asking to make sure I get the accurate response to it?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fair enough. At the time of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s first suicide attempt in June 2011, was DIGPRS 1626 a mandatory policy requiring a risk management team? Is it accepted that no risk management team and no crisis management plan were ever established by Dr Suresh Babu or Wing Commander Peter Davies?
Adm. Johnston: You’re asking me particulars of details of that set of circumstances. We would take them on notice and do our best to answer them for you.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your desire for accuracy. Do you accept that, by failing to comply with that mandatory policy, Defence removed structured oversight of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s care and therefore failed to discharge its duty of care regardless of treatment occurring in a civilian hospital?
Adm. Johnston: Again, I’m not in the position to answer the detail. I just don’t have sufficient knowledge of it. I would look at it, but I would restate the importance and the amount of work that we have done to address suicide within the Defence Force and that with veterans after. There are considerable initiatives, and we have learnt from each one of these tragic circumstances about how we need to change our policies, the awareness of our people and the proactive environment that we can provide in order to minimise the circumstances of suicide occurring. That was a tragic set of circumstances. We are doing our best to learn from them and to change the environment to prevent suicide occurring within the force.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a nice broad fluffy statement, and it’s honourable, but I’d like a specific answer to that question, if you could give it to me. I accept that you’re putting yourself in a difficult position if you just answer off the cuff, so we’d appreciate the answer on notice.
Adm. Johnston: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did Defence redact freedom of information material under sections 47E and 47F relating to statements by Flight Lieutenant Carlisle Miles, Commodore Fiona Southwood and Colonel Matthew Freeman when an FOI review later revealed those redactions concealed false and subjective statements portraying Petty Officer Armfield—that’s the deceased’s brother, and he’s also the complainant—as dishonest or mentally unstable? Some of those statements were emailed 11 times to 14 commissioned officers, thereby damaging his professional reputation and shaping a false narrative to protect Defence.
Adm. Johnston: I’m sorry. I don’t have that knowledge, but we will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s the brother.
Adm. Johnston: Sorry? What is the question within what you’ve just presented?
Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s Petty Officer Armfield.
Adm. Johnston: If your question is why did the Inspector-General of the ADF come to that conclusion, that is best, of course, presented to the inspector-general rather than to the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know if what he said was true and you’re aware of it?
Adm. Johnston: I would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What authority or qualification did Commodore Bannister rely upon to decide that Mr Armfield’s allegations of criminal conduct, supported by ADF legal advice and reviewed by senior external lawyers, were not referred to police or prosecutors?
Adm. Johnston: Again, I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Petty Officer Armfield reported alleged breaches of Commonwealth law on the advice of an ADF lawyer to Commodore Fiona Southwood, Warrant Officer Navy Andrew Bertoncin, Captain Anne Andrews, Chief of Navy Mark Hammond, IGADF and the Defence Force Ombudsman. All were provided the evidence. Process and policy was followed. If each officer deflected or claimed it was not their remit, who exactly does an enlisted sailor, soldier or air crew report allegations of criminal conduct to within the ADF?
Adm. Johnston: That is one of the areas where we have extensively sought to enhance the options that are available to individuals of how they report. Some of them, as you were referring to, would be up through their leadership chain. We have ensured there are independent options that are outside of an individual’s unit or command structure so that in those circumstances where they feel more comfortable reporting externally they have multiple options, whether it is to military police or the inspector-general of the ADF. We now have a centralised reporting mechanism where reporting can be made that is separate to the command chains. We have ensured there are multiple pathways available to people when either they believe that reporting that they may have made to their leadership is not being acted on or where they are uncomfortable with reporting in that environment and they wish to be able to report externally to it.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’m hearing—correct me if I’m wrong—is that mandatory defence suicide management policy was not followed, that oversight failed and you’ve made changes since. Serious concerns raised by Petty Officer John Armfield, the deceased’s brother, were known to senior Defence leadership and possibly yourself while being denied under oath elsewhere; is that correct?
Adm. Johnston: That’s not what I said, with respect.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t saying what you said—what I’ve heard, what I’ve interpreted.
Adm. Johnston: No, I didn’t comment on the individual circumstances of the case but did explain what we had done. If your question is around that set of circumstances, I will need to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could take it on notice, please. I accept your correction there. We’ve heard that reputationally damaging material was withheld under freedom of information, that flawed and unqualified investigations occurred and that allegations of possible criminal conduct were not referred despite legal advice; is that correct?
Adm. Johnston: Again, I do not have that detail. I would have to come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Notably, the only person referred to law enforcement in this matter was the whistleblower himself, who was acting on the advice of an ADF lawyer, and none of the officers whose conduct is now in question. Could you confirm or correct that, please?
Adm. Johnston: I would have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see this as support for a whistleblower. It’s avoidance. It goes to the heart of institutional integrity and accountability. I look forward to your answers to questions on notice, because the public deserve the truth. Your officers and your enlisted people deserve the truth—Army, Navy, Air Force—and they deserve justice. Anything less confirms that protecting the institution still matters more than protecting those who serve it. That’s what I’ve seen, being blunt, for the last few years in Senate estimates. The senior brass of the ADF is not standing up and providing leadership.
Adm. Johnston: I hope you have seen significant evidence that, as we have already canvassed this morning, people are critical to our capability, and that the work we are doing through implementing the royal commission recommendations within Defence is a significant priority for us. The structure of support and the environment and culture that we are seeking to build, both within the Defence Force and more broadly across Defence, is highly supportive of our people. There are circumstances—and the royal commission was clear—where we have let people down, and we have acknowledged that. We have put significant effort and priority around doing everything that we can to change those circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: I look at the report from the inquiry into honours and awards. There was a clear recommendation that Defence put in place a more objective process, and that was nixed by the government. I still don’t see that desire for accountability and truth at the top of the Australian Defence Force.
During Estimates in October, I asked Comcare about its investigation into the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays — a tragedy that claimed four lives. I wanted clarity on the scope and depth of their work.
Comcare confirmed the investigation is still open, with active lines of inquiry. They explained that a specialised investigation team was assigned, supported by subject matter experts for technical aspects. I asked about the range of expertise and the number of interviews conducted and agreed to provide those details on notice.
The investigation focused on obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act. Comcare gathered evidence from witnesses, documents, and technical specialists. I referred to Senate-ordered documents showing potential Category 1 and Category 2 offences and asked what those mean. Their legal officer explained that Category 1 involves reckless breaches of safety duties while Category 2 involves breaches without recklessness.
I noted Defence’s reputation for strict procedures and asked if they violated their own standards. Comcare said that wasn’t the primary focus, though they may have considered it as part of broader safety controls.
Finally, I asked if they were disappointed the prosecutor decided not to lay charges despite evidence of serious breaches. Mr Duke admitted he was personally disappointed but said Comcare accepted the decision and remains focused on achieving safety outcomes. He stressed the investigation was thorough and comprehensive, and they were satisfied they did everything within their powers to prepare the brief.
I questioned the Defence Department about some serious allegations regarding a “protection racket” between the Air Force and major airlines like Qantas and Virgin.
I’ve seen internal emails suggesting the Air Force has been whispering in the ears of HR departments to delay start dates for pilots who are trying to transition to civilian careers.
It’s absolutely unacceptable to place invisible barriers in front of veterans who have served their country and just want to provide for their families.
While the Air Marshal denied any wrongdoing and insisted retention rates are “healthy,” I’ve pushed for a lot more detail. They’ve taken my questions on notice, so I’m currently waiting on the answers.
We need full transparency on these backroom deals to ensure our pilots aren’t being held captive by their own employer.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll move on to Qantas’s and Virgin’s interference. There are significant allegations that the Air Force is deliberately colluding with Virgin and Qantas to try and force, or pressure, those airlines to delay starting dates for former Air Force pilots, to keep them locked in a job in the Air Force that they don’t want to be in anymore. After serving our country, pilots shouldn’t be subjected to invisible barriers that stop them from getting a job in the civilian world. In late 2017, the director of personnel for the Air Force opened a line with Qantas ‘to establish a working relationship at the HR recruitment level’ and to discuss ‘recruitment, retention and leave without pay’. I’ve got an excerpt from a freedom-of-information request. It’s an email from Mitchell Beck, squadron leader air operations 1, director of personnel for the Air Force. It was sent on 22 January 2018, and the subject is ‘RAAF Virgin meeting 18 January 2018’. In that it is confirmed: ‘We, the Air Force, discuss methods of delayed start dates for RAAF pilots, such as when the member is leaving from a critical job. Virgin may be receptive to a delayed start of six to 12 months.’ That is the Air Force seeking to coerce airlines into arbitrarily delaying someone starting a new job for up to a year because the Air Force wants to keep the pilot in a job they didn’t want to be in. How can you justify taking away service members’ ability to earn a living and feed their family in the civilian workforce for an entire year?
Senator McAllister: Chair, I think officials will be in a position to provide some advice to the senator about the broad policy position. It is very difficult for officials to respond to the quotes that have been provided by Senator Roberts without seeing them or understanding their provenance. I wonder if committee members might consider providing copies of materials they rely on to form questions, because it is challenging for officials to respond if they don’t have them in front of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it boils down to—
CHAIR: Do you have a copy for the witnesses?
Senator ROBERTS: I haven’t got it with me.
CHAIR: I’m also mindful of time. Have you got a few more questions on this issue?
Senator ROBERTS: Very short. Is the Air Force working with Qantas and Virgin to delay the transition out of the Air Force for their pilots?
Air Marshal Chappell: We’re not working with airlines to delay anyone’s careers. I would have to understand the emails you’re referring to from 2018 in significantly more detail in order to give you an answer, given all of the factors that are involved in career management, initial obligations of air crew and many others. Can I take it on notice and, if possible, understand or get copies of the emails you’re referring to so I can best respond to your questions?
Senator ROBERTS: I will undertake to get the FOI quotes. If you can take it on notice, I would like to know the formal and informal arrangements between the Air Force and Qantas or Virgin.
Air Marshal Chappell: Thanks, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Also can you table any MOUs, emails, minutes and briefings in relation to these meetings from the past three years.
Adm. Johnston: We’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Were any names or any lists of serving or separating pilots shared with the airlines?
Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the package on notice.
Adm. Johnston: We just don’t have that information.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. You could take on notice under what privacy authority those names were given, and whether any contact influenced hiring decisions or start dates.
Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the questions on notice without necessarily accepting any of the assertions in your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Fine. How many cases by year since 2017 involved Air Force contacting an airline about a pilot’s application, start date or employment status, and what were the outcomes? If you could take that on notice.
Air Marshal Chappell: I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What conflict-of-interest and post-separation controls apply to personnel staff liaising with airlines? You can take that on notice. Does Defence accept that such liaison without transparent policy and consent risks a perception of covert influence over civilian hiring to manage retention? Why did you do it? It seems to be a bandaid situation.
Adm. Johnston: We will take all of those on notice. We need to get the details of what you have in front of you to make sure we answer them reasonably.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re being hit with excessive retirements from the Australian defence forces across the board. We know that. We are wondering if this is just a bandaid solution.
Adm. Johnston: Our separation rates are well below average, rather than elevated, at the moment.
Air Marshal Chappell: Over the last 12 months to the end of June, the financial year, Air Force grew by 824 personnel.
Senator ROBERTS: I am pleased to hear that at last.
Air Marshal Chappell: The evidence a little earlier would have illuminated the broader Defence story, which is very similar. Air Force is now above 16,000 personnel. We are continuing to grow, and separation rates are continuing to fall and stabilise at very healthy levels.
Senator ROBERTS: Please provide on notice a full briefing in relation to the nature of the relationship between the personnel division and the airlines, how this relates to separating pilots, and under what authority Air Force is seeking—if you are seeking—to interfere with the post-separation employment of pilots.
Air Marshal Chappell: I will take those on notice without accepting any of your assertions.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I said. None of this should be happening. In the wake of the royal commission, I think you should be stopping any conversations with the airlines that interfere with employment of pilots who separate. I would like you to comment on that.
Senator McAllister: That’s not really a question, Senator. I think it commences with the assertion that something is happening. Officials have, a few times now, asked you for the opportunity to consider the materials you are relying upon before providing a response.
Senator ROBERTS: And I said I would get it.
CHAIR: That’s been taken on notice. Thank you very much
