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
This is our last chance to act before we stand at cenotaphs across the country, yet the government seems content to push a bill that belongs in the dustbin.
I’ve watched the inquiries. I’ve heard the testimony. I’ve felt the genuine pain and shock from our veterans and those currently serving. They feel betrayed. Defence morale is absolutely shot to bits right now, and a big part of that is a government that gives the “top brass” carte blanche while ignoring the men and women on the ground.
The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal deserves better, and our soldiers certainly deserve better.
The bureaucratic games must stop! Start showing respect to those who wear the uniform.
P.S. Finally clearing up speech videos from late last year. While the date may have passed, the message is still relevant today.
— Senate Speech | November 2025
Trancript
Senator ROBERTS:I support Senator Pocock’s motion to suspend standing orders because it is urgent and it’s serious. I watched the inquiry. I felt the pain from veterans, from the serving men and women and from the DHAAT—the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. The veterans are shocked at what is going on. After serving the country, they’re shocked, they’re in pain and they’re in anguish. It’s the same with the enlisted men and women right now. It’s the same with the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. As Senator McKenzie pointed out, we have Remembrance Day coming up in five days.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please refer your remarks to the suspension.
Senator ROBERTS: We have five days. This is the last sitting day before Remembrance Day. That’s why it has to be done today. That’s why it’s urgent. There are two more reasons. One is that Defence morale is shot to bits over this issue and over many other issues, because the government is just listening to, and giving carte blanche to, the Defence top brass. My final point is that the minister and the government need to be saved from themselves. This is a stupid bill that’s coming up. It needs to be condemned and consigned to the dustbin.
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
Australia has been left almost defenceless after decades of failures from both sides of politics.
They’ve gutted our defence forces and failed our troops. The current Chief of the Defence even criticised a “warrior” culture in our special forces. This is absurd.
We have to give our Defence Force personnel a proper purpose and a clear mission. We need to spend less money on gender advisers and more on ammo.
Transcript
Some commentators question whether we should have warriors in the Australian Defence Force. My answer to that question is emphatic: yes, we should. Australians ask the government to protect them from foreign enemies. There’s a line on a map; it’s called our national border. Inside that line is the country of Australia and its people, and our resources, our families, our property and our way of life.
Outside our borders there are some foreign countries who wish to bend Australia to their will. It’s only a matter of time before someone else in the world with a big enough military believes they can change what happens inside our borders. History shows that. As the people of Australia, we ask our Defence Force to ensure no enemy that wishes to do us harm may cross our border. We take some of the fittest, smartest and most motivated young Australians and ask them to put their lives on the line, for that line, to protect what’s inside it. We ask that our defence members be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. It’s a debt we can never truly repay.
I’ve had the privilege of listening to many soldiers, sailors and pilots. In almost all of those conversations one word comes up. That word is ‘service’. These Australians answered the call to serve our country and to serve our Australian flag. Defence personnel ask for something simple in return. They ask for something that I agree they deserve. They ask for a purpose to their service. They ask for a clear mission. Above all, they ask for accountable leaders. The Defence Force has been in a drought of accountable leadership at the very top. Politicians have always invoked the Anzac spirit in big speeches. But it’s not enough to stand up on Anzac Day and claim to back the troops. We must deliver the things they deserve every day: a clear purpose, a clear mission and accountability for our leaders. Successive politicians, ministers and especially generals have failed to deliver this for our defence personnel.
Australia had forces deployed to Afghanistan for 20 years. Australia’s uniform military was pitted against the Taliban, an insurgent guerrilla organisation. With superior technology, tactics, resources, training and troops, Western forces famously won nearly every tactical engagement. The Taliban reportedly had a saying: ‘You have the watches’—referring to the Western technology—’but we have the time.’ As some commentators quipped, we spent 20 years and billions of dollars and sacrificed Australian lives to replace the Taliban with the Taliban. The tens of thousands of ADF personnel who were deployed to the Middle East deserve our praise. They accepted the call and committed their lives to it. It’s the leaders, the politicians and the generals that must be held accountable for the decision to send our best to faraway lands.
On his last day in parliament, on The 7.30 Report former foreign minister Alexander Downer said that John Howard walked into cabinet when he came back from 9/11 in the US and simply declared, ‘We are off to Iraq.’ There was no discussion with the public and not even a word of debate in parliament, just the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was an illegal war based on a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction, as our political leaders claimed. Yet not one politician or general has been jailed for throwing our best into it. Not one was even called out or even held accountable. Our enlisted and junior officers did everything they could to serve us while deployed to the wider Middle East. Scores paid the ultimate sacrifice. What about the politicians and senior generals who failed and hamstrung our soldiers? Those apparent leaders never delivered a coherent reason or an end state for what we were trying to achieve.
Without a compelling reason for why our soldiers were deployed to the Middle East, many of our veterans and serving members were left disillusioned. Make no mistake: there were no angels in the Taliban ranks. Those insurgents were some of the worst of the worst. Despite this, our warriors rightly asked why. Why were we in desert country spilling Australian blood only for the Taliban to retake those bases from the Afghan army, as many on the ground warned they would? The answer is that the leaders failed to ever give our soldiers, aviators and sailors the purpose they deserve.
Our lesson must be to never repeat these mistakes. The mission of our defence forces should be clear. If you sign up for the armed forces, your job will be to protect the sovereignty of Australia from anyone who wishes to do us harm. It will not be to fight forever wars in faraway lands having been sent there based on lies. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I know that our warriors in the military deserve a place in our hearts, and our service men and women deserve a damn good reason to be there and they deserve and need strong leadership. (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/axRI_dUO2Zs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-04-24 08:11:392025-04-24 08:11:48Australia Left Defenceless After Decades of Failures
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 ABC published a video that had additional gunshots inserted into it to try and accuse Special Forces Soldiers of War Crimes. Veteran Heston Russell has been asking for a (deserved) apology for years and if he’d been given one, the ABC could have avoided a multi-million dollar court case.
Now they tout the results of an “independent” review. The person who conducted the review held senior positions at the ABC for decades and is likely still close friends with people who work there.
The ABC is failing to live up to the standards Australians expect of a $1 billion taxpayer organisation.
The Terms of Reference for the review are so narrow that they likely restricted the review.
The reviewer is an award-winning journalist with a positive reputation. However, when appointing a supposedly “independent” reviewer, it’s important that the reviewer is appropriate in terms of background and experience and that the reviewer has no perceived connection with the organisation they are reviewing.
This reviewer spent decades with ABC-SBS, beginning as a cadet at the ABC in 1979.
The interim report’s recommendations raise integrity as an issue with ABC News, which leads me to conclude that, at best, ABC News is sloppy.
The ABC has blown millions in taxpayer dollars defending its defamatory treatment of Heston Russell and leaves itself open to further scrutiny, yet despite losing the defamation case, the ABC refuses to apologise.
The arrogance here is astounding. Just apologise.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. Mr Stevens, the ABC has continually and arrogantly defied calls to apologise to veteran Special Forces commando Heston Russell. The ABC lost a defamation case to him. You wasted millions in taxpayer money. After that, the ABC has been caught publishing manipulated video with inserted gunshots, claiming it’s Heston Russell. For how long are you going to oppose doing the right thing? Just apologise to Heston Russell; that’s all he’s asked for, from the start.
Mr Stevens: Senator Roberts, thanks for the question. You raised a series of things implying each of those matters was connected. There are a number of issues you raised that we can separate out and talk in detail about. With the defamation trial that you referenced, they were not the publications that we are talking about today, in the context of the Sunderland review. They are separate publications.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you say that again, please?
Mr Stevens: The publications on which Mr Russell sued the ABC, in the defamation trial that you referenced, were not the publications that were subject to Alan Sunderland’s independent review. They’re separate matters. It’s important to distinguish the difference.
Senator ROBERTS Did you lose that case?
Mr Stevens: We did, and we respect the judgement of Justice Lee.
Senator HENDERSON:Can I ask a clarifying question? That’s not the case, Mr Stevens, because on 30 November ABC lawyers actually produced the helicopter video in the Federal Court. In its defence, the ABC pleaded truth, and said that Heston Russell was the shooter. The helicopter video was absolutely front and centre of these Federal Court proceedings.
Mr Stevens: Would you like me to respond to that, Senator?
Senator HENDERSON:Yes.
Mr Stevens: With respect, the vision you’re referring to was not a publication. It was vision from helmet-cam that was used and utilised in these publications, but they were not a publication in their own right. They came up during legal proceedings in the context of one of the ABC’s earlier defences.
Senator HENDERSON: That’s not the case, Mr Stevens, because that was published. That helicopter video, those fake gunshots, were published by the ABC on a number of different occasions. I’m sorry to cut in, Senator Roberts, but I can’t accept the way that you’re trying to mischaracterise these proceedings.
Senator ROBERTS: Did the ABC lose the defamation case to Heston Russell?
Mr Stevens: Could I clarify, Chair, who I’m responding to?
CHAIR: This is really not very helpful because you’re both talking at cross-purposes. Let’s let the witness clarify these separate issues, so that we’re really clear about what we’re talking about. Senator Roberts has the call.
Senator HENDERSON: Yes, I appreciate that.
CHAIR: We’ll keep with that line of questioning, to minimise this level of confusion. Mr Stevens, would you like to step that out?
Mr Stevens: Yes, the ABC did not win that defamation trial, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: They lost it?
Mr Stevens: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you going to apologise to Heston Russell?
Mr Stevens: The managing director, Mr Anderson, has previously been asked in Senate estimates that very question, immediately after the trial, and was very clear as to the ABC’s position on that. In relation to—
Senator ROBERTS: What is that position?
Mr Stevens: I don’t have the transcript with me, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s Mr Anderson’s position?
Mr Stevens: He’s the Managing Director of the ABC.
Senator ROBERTS: No; what is his position that you’re referring to now, in terms of—
Ms Kleyn: Senator, could we please provide that on notice? Mr Anderson absolutely provided information on the record. We don’t have that in front of us. We would like to be able to access that information, so that we give a true account of what Mr Anderson said.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you afraid of apologising to Heston Russell? You’ve done him a disservice. Why are you afraid of that?
Mr Stevens: There’s no means of being afraid or not, Senator Roberts. We’re happy to talk at length about any of the matters in relation to either the defamation trial that you’ve referenced or the very separate publications which were subject to the independent review. I’m not sure whether you’ve had an opportunity to read that yet. The review has been tabled for this committee. The review makes it very clear, and we accept the findings of that independent review. In relation to the specific mistakes, in relation to that review, we have absolutely issued an apology for the video editing errors that occurred. We’re not hiding from that. That apology extends to members of the 2nd Commando Regiment.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Heston Russell has done distinguished service for this country and you’ve defamed him. Your organisation has defamed him. All he wanted in the first place was an apology, as I understand it; yet we have spent millions of dollars avoiding an apology. What’s so difficult?
Mr Stevens: Senator Roberts, in relation to the matters that have been tabled today, in regard to the independent review into our three related stories in Line of Fire, we’re not hiding from the fact that we have apologised for the video errors that have occurred in that. That apology extends to members of the 2nd Commando Regiment. Mr Russell was not named in those publications. The nature of defamation, at risk of stating the obvious, is that we accept the judgement. The judgement came with quite a sizeable amount of costs to Mr Russell. The court does not dictate or call on the other party to apologise. Mr Anderson was very clear in his answer previously in relation to the defamation trial, and the ABC’s position on that. As I said, I’m happy to take you through in detail the ABC’s response to Mr Sunderland’s review.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll have that on notice, please. Who signed off on the video of the extra gunshots that were manipulated into it?
Mr Stevens: Senator Roberts—
Senator ROBERTS: I know this has been asked before, but I want to know who signed off on it.
Mr Stevens: As the Sunderland review makes clear, the two publications for 7.30 were subject to robust editorial discussion. As director of news, those publications were referred up to me, and I take full responsibility for signing off on those publications.
Senator ROBERTS: You signed off on the doctored video?
Mr Stevens: With respect, Senator Roberts, I’d ask you to withdraw the allegation that it was doctored. The independent review showed that there was no evidence of doctoring.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it manipulated to have multiple shots when only one shot was on the original video? Surely, that’s manipulation, doctoring—fabricating?
Mr Stevens: Senator Roberts, as you’ll observe, when you get an opportunity to read the independent review, Mr Sunderland has, in detail, explained how it didn’t occur. I would emphasise that his independent review found, without a shadow of a doubt, that there was no evidence that the material was doctored. The editing mistakes were inadvertent. We don’t hide from the fact that they were—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; editing mistakes were inadvertent?
Mr Stevens: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So there were mistakes made in the editing. What sort of mistakes?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have a copy of that report?
Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t.
CHAIR: Maybe we can furnish you with a copy of that report, which may assist you, which was undertaken by Mr Sunderland to investigate these issues. His findings are stepped out in there.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that it was accidental?
Mr Stevens: It would probably be beneficial to quote Mr Sunderland, who said in his report:
I find no evidence that anybody, at any stage, made a conscious or deliberate decision to introduce additional gunshots.
He went on to say:
I have found no evidence to support the conclusion that any of this was done at the direction of the journalists involved or on the initiative of the video editor in order to doctor or deliberately distort the depiction of the events that occurred.
He said:
On the contrary, what evidence there is suggests it was not a deliberate editorial decision to include additional gunshot audio in order to mislead or deceive.
Senator ROBERTS: You said a minute ago—unless I’m wrong—that it was a mistake; it was an error.
Mr Stevens: It was an editing mistake, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: An editing mistake. In other words, it wasn’t deliberate, but it still happened?
Mr Stevens: Absolutely.
CHAIR: We’ll need to rotate the call, Senator Roberts. You have one last question.
Senator ROBERTS: The Federal Court found that Mark Willacy was combative and overly defensive, and that likely led to millions of dollars being wasted by the ABC on this court case. Now there’s outright proof that the ABC ‘errored’ in its gunshots on the video to make Heston Russell look worse. All the while Mr Willacy was trying to sell his own book about the issues that have caused the ABC all these problems. Why won’t you step him down? What disciplinary action have you taken against Mr Willacy?
Mr Stevens: Can I clarify? Was that a direct quote from the judgement?
Senator ROBERTS: Which aspect of it?
Mr Stevens: You said ‘the judgement’ and then you went on to say something.
CHAIR: That is an editorialisation, I think.
Mr Stevens: Was that a direct quote from the judgement?
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know if it is a direct quote; that is my understanding. The Federal Court found that Mr Willacy was ‘combative and overly defensive’. That likely led to millions of dollars being wasted; that’s my addition, ‘millions of dollars’.
Mr Stevens: The court found that Mr Willacy genuinely believed that the publications are in the public interest. The court also generally accepted Mr Willacy’s evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the court found that Mr Willacy was ‘combative and overly defensive’.
Mr Stevens: There are various descriptions in the judgement about the nature of the intense criticism the ABC was under and the ABC’s response to that over a period of time. Mark Willacy is a highly esteemed journalist. We back his work a hundred per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are not going to step him down?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I have skimmed the recommendations and the conclusions of the independent review by Mr Alan Sunderland, who apparently had 40 years at ABC and SBS. Recommendation 1 is:
Editorial policies and guidance should be reviewed to ensure the importance of maintaining the integrity of crucial source material is maintained, particularly in investigative stories.
The key word being ‘integrity.’ It raises questions as to whether there was a lack of that. Recommendation 2 is:
Training should be reviewed, in particular for non-editorial staff working in investigative areas, to ensure everyone is aware of key editorial principles including the need to maintain the integrity of source material.
It seems that people are not adequately aware. Recommendation 3 is:
Editing practices should be reviewed to ensure there is regular, timely and detailed face-to-face contact between editors, reporters and researchers during the editing process.
Are they inadequate? Are they substandard? Recommendation 4 is:
When multi-platform stories are being prepared, consistent and equal scrutiny should be applied to all elements of the story across all platforms.
Was there inadequate scrutiny? Finally, recommendation 5 is:
News should review the guidance note on interviews and discuss.
I’ll go into that. The ABC’s current guidance note on interviewing has one short section dealing with the need to take care to ensure that, as far as possible, you are properly reflecting the gist of the person’s position on the key issues being discussed. Mr Stevens, it seems to me that integrity is being questioned here, and, at best, this is an incredibly sloppy outfit. You are at the top of it, aren’t you?
Mr Stevens: You are correct to reference the term ‘integrity’. I would clarify, however, that Mr Sunderland is referencing the integrity of crucial source material. They are eminently sensible recommendations, and our editorial director can speak to our adoption of all recommendations.
Mr Fang: The interim report has provided a series of recommendations, which we will obviously go through incredibly carefully. You have read out some of those, which I think is really important. I am happy to go through them again. In relation to source material, what Mr Sunderland is reflecting from his review is that, in the process of doing editing, where there may be a situation, as he has raised in his review, around looking for clean audio, we need to look at our processes around doing that, to ensure that we don’t make this type of inadvertent mistake again. We will review the advice around that very clearly. He also spoke about the training we should be doing at the ABC, including for non-editorial staff. We will have a look at that. Training is a really important part of what we do. We are consistently working with ABC staff about editorial policies and providing guidance, and making sure they are equipped to meet our very high standards. But we will take on board the recommendations of the interim report.
Mr Sunderland also spoke about, as you have mentioned, editing and the regularity of face-to-face checks. Editing at this time, in this era, is complicated. Our teams are regularly producing a variety of different pieces of material for television, for online and for different video sources. Ensuring that process works in the best possible way will be something that we will look at.
As you have pointed out, he’s asked us to look at an extension of that, which is really the oversight of multiplatform stories. As you would be aware, we have teams that make stories for multiple programs and multiple outputs. We need to make sure that there continues to be real clarity, and that we look at how we’re ensuring that communication is best handled across those different platforms.
Senator ROBERTS: The panel from the ABC, the four of you, keep calling this an independent report. Alan Sunderland previously worked as the head of policy and staff development with ABC News, and he was a journalist for 32 years. He began as an ABC cadet in 1979, before spending more than 20 years as an on-the-road reporter with the ABC and SBS. His experience includes five years as political editor with SBS in Canberra. He returned to the ABC and to news management in 2005. When did Alan Sunderland leave the ABC? Could you not find someone who was even vaguely independent of the ABC? Is this an independent report or an insider report?
Ms Kleyn: I would answer very clearly that it is an independent report. I would have to take on notice the exact date of Mr Sunderland’s departure from the ABC. From memory, it was around six or seven years ago; I am not sure. We can absolutely take that on notice. Mr Sunderland is an independent member of the Press Council. We are comfortable in asserting quite clearly that Mr Sunderland is independent, and he operated independently throughout this review.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2017, Alan Sunderland wrote, ‘Well, let me try to tell you exactly what’s wrong with it.’ That was in response to calls for ABC reporting to be fair and balanced. Is this really someone who can be trusted to write an independent review of this subject? Who appointed him, and what were the criteria for his selection?
Ms Kleyn: Mr Anderson appointed Mr Sunderland. Mr Stevens, is there something that you want to add?
Mr Stevens: A couple of things. Firstly, before questioning the integrity of Mr Sunderland, I’d encourage the senator to read the report in full before forming any judgements about it. Secondly, the fact that Mr Sunderland has made findings against the ABC would undermine any sense that it’s a report free of criticism.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Kleyn, what did you learn from this whole episode and the millions of dollars in taxpayer money that have been wasted? That’s why we are here; it’s an estimates session.
Ms Kleyn: Understood.
Senator ROBERTS: Money has been flowing out.
Ms Kleyn: We’ve all learnt a lot from the report.
Senator ROBERTS: What did you learn?
Ms Kleyn: I have learnt that we have some processes on which we need to make process improvements. We have five recommendations detailed here. I take those recommendations very seriously. My colleague has just explained how the recommendations have been laid out, and our intention to adopt the recommendations and do what we need to do to make sure these sorts of errors don’t happen again.
Senator ROBERTS: Bearing in mind witness guide 4.15, what actions will you take as a result of this experience? Without names, because we want to make sure privacy is respected, was anyone’s employment terminated as a result of this?
Ms Kleyn: I can confirm that no-one’s employment has been terminated. What actions will we take? We will adopt these recommendations.
Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone leave the ABC as a result of this?
Ms Kleyn: To my awareness, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stevens, did anyone leave the ABC as a result of this?
Mr Stevens: I have not left the ABC.
Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone leave the ABC?
Mr Stevens: No, not that we’re aware of. We can take it on notice. There would only be the need for someone to leave if there was evidence of misconduct on the part of staff. As you’ll learn, in the report there’s no evidence of misconduct.
Senator CADELL: Going back, you can say that the editor didn’t leave because of this. In answer to the earlier question about the editor, you specifically said you didn’t want to comment regarding the privacy of an employee. By that comment, saying no-one left because of it, you’re saying he or she didn’t leave because of this?
Mr Stevens: I did say I would take it on notice.
Senator CADELL: You just said then that no-one left.
Mr Stevens: To my knowledge.
CHAIR: To their knowledge. To clarify, every point has been to their knowledge. They said they will take it on notice and investigate further. What I am hearing is that they don’t know of anyone at this point. As I’ve said, Senator Roberts, we need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Amorelli, are you aware of anyone who left as a result of this, or was pushed out or left voluntarily?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/uhsQWPDRDRQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-12 15:37:082025-07-02 16:31:15ABC Never Apologise When Called Out
Transparency and accountability are essential in a democracy, yet this government continues to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, especially when it comes to the higher brass in the Department of Defence.
The refusal to release the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force isn’t about national security—it’s about avoiding embarrassment. We need a process that allows senators to confidentially review sensitive documents, ensuring accountability while protecting the public interest. We must demand a government that serves the people, not itself.
One Nation will fight for our Defence Force personnel to be treated fairly by senior officers. One standard must apply to all.
Transcript
Well, the minister’s explanation is pitiful. Look at paragraph (a)(iv) of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge’s motion. Senator Wong failed to comply. She did not provide the names. Who has been consulted in relation to the release of the report of the 20-year review of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force? Why is the government continuing to hide? This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. This is the government’s response. The claim isn’t that there was anything classified in the report of the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force that Senator Lambie had been seeking; the claim the minister makes is that this report wasn’t meant to be released because the government didn’t want it to be released, not that national security was under threat, not that there was classified information in it. The government didn’t want it to be released because that would be embarrassing and they would be asked to do something about it. That’s not good enough.
An order to produce documents that passes this Senate is constitutionally superior to acts of law. The government doesn’t get to decide that they can toss those orders in the bin. This is a rare occasion where we get to see the report even though the government refused to hand it over. Credit must go to Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge for pushing this and to their offices for managing to get a copy of the report. Usually, as senators, we’re left in the dark. The government makes a public interest immunity claim and refuses to hand over anything. The government tells us that if this report was released the sky would fall in, that there would be an earthquake that shatters the public interest. Now, as senators, we’re quite reasonable and responsible. We know that truth reinforces truth. While we might desperately want that information we somewhat trust that the government hasn’t lied to our face and that there would be an actual risk to the public interest if the document were published. Yesterday and today show once and for all, yet again, that the government is completely undeserving of that trust.
The minister’s explanation clearly isn’t sufficient, and the current process for ordering documents is failing the Australian people and the senators seeking information on behalf of the people—information that belongs to the Australian people. To that end, I’ll again be proposing a new, additional way for handling orders for documents. When ministers make a public interest immunity claim, the claimed harm results from releasing the document to the public. There’s a way to make sure this is a win-win. I’ll go through it again. It’s making sure sensitive information isn’t released while at the same time ensuring senators get the information needed to make informed decisions. The way to do this is to establish a process for senators to confidentially review ordered documents without releasing them to the public.
This proposal may sound familiar to some. I first raised it in 2022, and this Senate supported a reference to the Procedure Committee for inquiry. With respect to the senators on that committee, the response was lacking. The inquiry was given four months to report on the issue, did not seek any submissions and produced the Procedure Committee’s first report of 2023 of a towering two pages. While the committee declined to endorse the proposal, they did confirm that it’s feasible. The committee committed to further report on the process for the order for the production of documents later in 2023. No report was delivered. Imagine that. Given the increased frequency of orders for the production of documents and the nearly blanket ban the government seems to be applying on transparency, it’s time to deal with this issue again.
This proposal is relatively simple. If the minister makes a public interest immunity claim, they wouldn’t have to release it to the public but they would have to release it to us—the senators—confidentially. A majority of the Senate could then decide whether the minister’s claim is legitimate and the document deserves to be kept secret from the public. It’s true that, just like a normal order for the production of documents, the minister could refuse to hand over the documents to the committee. Since no harm could flow from public disclosure in this process, it would be apparent that the only harm the government would want to avoid would be embarrassment. That gives us a better reason to apply sanctions for noncompliance, which the Senate is rightly cautious to do under the current process. In making a public interest immunity claim the minister would be automatically required to nominate a standing committee to receive the document, and only senators would be allowed to review it.
I will be submitting a notice of motion with some draft amendments to the standing orders for senators to consider over the break. I welcome their input and any suggestions to make these changes better. The Australian public deserves transparency, and as the Senate, the house of review, we must deliver accountability on this government. Recent weeks in this chamber have shown debacle after debacle. The government is in chaos. Australia has a chaotic government, and the people pay for that—enlisted people and veterans pay for it. The Senate’s scrutiny will help the government to govern and reduce the chaos. We are willing to help you, and that’s what our help will do. The people deserve the truth, openness and accountability. (Time expired)
Just days after the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission published it’s final report, the Government announced it would be stripping medals from soldiers in Afghanistan. Instead of promising to implement the findings of the Royal Commission, the government doubled down on the kind of hypocrisy that is killing people. While some are stripped of medals, the previous Chief of Defence Force, Angus Campbell, still has his medal for commanding those soldiers. One standard should apply to everyone.
To implement the findings of the Royal Commission, we need a complete clean out of the senior people in Defence who let the problem get this bad.
Transcript
Let’s listen to words to my Senate office team today from a brave ADF veteran with a distinguished record of serving our country and now serving veterans across the country. He opens with a quote from British judge Sturgess: ‘Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz hotel.’ Announcing this cart-before-the-horse decision today, just three days after the release of the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide and a day after the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—a day that forever changed the lives of these men and women—and on R U Okay Day in Australia is nothing short of cruel.
Still, the motives are clear: to divert attention from the failures of Defence Force leadership and from the government and once again shift the blame onto a few men from the SASR who were in action. The timing is no coincidence. It’s a calculated move to protect those at the top while scapegoating those who served on the front lines. If medals are to be revoked from those at the tactical and operational levels for their soldiers’ alleged war crimes from allegations from over a decade ago, ultimate responsibility must rest with the commanders in charge at the time. Accountability should start at the top, with those who approved the missions and made the strategic decisions. Without holding senior leadership accountable, this action becomes nothing more than scapegoating those on the ground. Accountability must start at the top.
Let’s keep going with the ADF veteran’s words: ‘Accountability in the military is paramount. Yet what we have witnessed is the pre-emptive punishment of a few and a violation of due process. The chain of command ensures accountability at every level, meaning that responsibility for success and failure is shared.’
Just my own comment: in business and in sport, accountability is the fundamental quality. Going back to the ADF veteran: ‘Therefore, generals who commanded during these periods, these men, are set to lose their honours and awards. From the commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force, officers who for the most part did not see action but wear medals suggesting they did should face the same pre-emptive punishment. Stripping medals from senior officers reinforces command responsibility and ensures leadership is held accountable for their decisions in command. It upholds fairness and integrity, demonstrating that no-one is above accountability.’ He goes on: ‘Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) establishes the principle of command responsibility, holding military commanders criminally liable for crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew, or should have known, and failed to prevent or punish them. The statute places a clear duty on commanders to control their forces, and failure to do so makes them legally responsible for their subordinates’ actions. In light of this, if soldiers are to be held accountable for alleged war crimes, the same standard must apply to the commanders in charge at the time—from the Commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force. Command responsibility dictates that leadership cannot be insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Yet, after 10 years, the fact remains: no-one has been convicted of war crimes.
‘This tone-deaf statement and its timing send a clear message from the top of the Defence Force and government. It shows they’ve learned nothing from the declining recruitment and retention rates, the public’s outrage over ADF’s bloated staff ranks and their untouchable status, or the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide. Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.’
That’s the end of the quote from that distinguished ADF veteran. He still feels intense loyalty to the defence forces, despite what’s happened. His finished there with: ‘Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.’ Why should he care—he is out? I’ll tell you why he cares. It is because he cares about this country, as well as about the ADF, the veterans and those still serving. That’s why this is so important.
This affects culture, which is our ADF’s secret weapon. It is its most powerful strategic weapon. I’m not going to talk at length about that; I’ve talked about it before. Think about the culture in the Defence Force now. We’ve learned, apparently, that the royal commission didn’t expect Defence to stonewall vital information and keep it from the royal commission. Why? Surely, it’s better to be open and lance the boil? No, they stonewalled.
But, then again, we’ve now learned that three months ago a coordination officer from Defence was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross for outstanding outcomes in working with the royal commission. That begs the question: in Defence’s eyes, what are ‘outstanding outcomes’? Here are some questions I asked in question time of Senator Wong—for whom I have a lot of regard—representing the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles. I began by saying:
Minister, on the recommendation of the then Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, the government will strip distinguished service medals from soldiers for allegations of war crimes that have not been proven in a criminal court, yet the government will not strip the Distinguished Service Cross medal off General Campbell.
Then I asked her:
Minister, why do soldiers under General Campbell ‘s command lose medals while he keeps his medal for commanding them?
I didn’t get a satisfactory response. Then, as a second question, I began with:
Minister, the Brereton report specifically excluded any findings on command accountability.
The minister disagreed with me on that, to be fair. I continued with:
The implementation oversight panel, though, provided independent advice to government that the Brereton report, in doing this, was inappropriate and that senior command accountability must be examined.
That was the implementation oversight report. So I asked the minister:
Why are Defence’s most senior leaders being let off scot-free on allegations in the Brereton report and why is your government ignoring the oversight panel’s advice?
I didn’t get a satisfactory answer. My final question began:
Minister, the criterion for the Distinguished Service Cross at the time General Campbell was nominated required him to be ‘in action’, meaning in direct contact with an enemy—
Facing the enemy, being fired upon by the enemy, having actual engagement—
yet there are no records of General Campbell being in action.
I asked her:
Why does your government refuse to have the honours and awards appeals tribunal examine his award?
Why indeed! I’ve asked that question before in Senate estimates and got nowhere. We will continue.
We see that Labor is now moving an amendment to Senator Lambie’s motion. My brief reading of it is that the government is watering down Senator Lambie’s fine motion, which calls on the government to ‘urgently publish’ a comprehensive timeline. The government now wants to water that down with an amendment that calls on the government to ‘urgently work towards’ this. There is no commitment. So I want to thank Senator Lambie for this motion. I want to thank her for her work and for speaking strongly for veterans and enlisted people. I want to thank Senator Shoebridge, who has left the chamber, but nonetheless I thank him for his work as well.
I’ll finish by saying that our most powerful strategic weapon is the Australian Defence Force culture. That includes mateship and accountability—very, very strong. I’ve heard about it from many sailors, airmen and soldiers. They respect it and they understand the power of it. I’ve heard it from officers. I’ve heard it from veterans. I’ve heard it from enlisted ranks. We’ve been watching it unravel for years, listening to soldiers, airmen, sailors, officers, enlisted men and women and veterans. It’s unravelling, yet it’s the key to our defence forces. This is a prize that must be guarded with reverence, yet at Senate estimates I’m disappointed to see that the senior brass don’t seem to understand it.
Implementation of the recommendations of this royal commission must be sincere, meaningful and informed to restore accountability and to restore culture in the Australian defence forces. We will be watching, as I’m sure Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and others will be. This is the house of review. As representatives of the people we serve, we will be watching and holding the government accountable. We also serve veterans and current forces because they have served us and our country with distinction. We serve all the people of Australia, and that’s why we will be watching to see their implementation of this royal commission.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/0cGoUQiAt-c/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-10-10 13:32:002024-10-10 13:48:43Defence Deflects and Distracts from Royal Commission Results
