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?
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.
These Estimates questions relate to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ proposed $5,000 aggregate cap on allied health services.
Our veterans and doctors are worried – and they have every right to be.
The government claims this cap won’t hurt complex-case veterans, yet they admit the system to apply for funding above the cap hasn’t even been designed yet.
Fix the system, don’t punish everyone! If there’s fraud, target the fraudsters. Do not penalise the vast majority of honest, caring doctors and vulnerable veterans.
Those who sacrificed for our country should never face cost-cutting measures disguised as ‘reforms.’ Our veterans deserve certainty, respect, and our support.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I want to go over some changes to the annual monetary limit— some details that may not have been covered. I’ll do my best to try and avoid questions that were going to be asked but have since been covered. If I miss out, let me know. I’m also passing on a lot of complaints and questions from veterans as well as doctors. Doctors are appalled and resigned, yet, fundamentally, they all care. You have already confirmed that the cap is an aggregate cap across all allied health services, not per discipline. Is that correct?
Mr Kefford: No, that’s not correct. It does not include optical, dental or hearing services.
Senator ROBERTS: Apart from them. Physio, physical treatment, mental health—they’re all aggregate?
Mr Brown: Open Arms counselling services are also not included.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the minister accept that an aggregate cap would force complex-case veterans to ration treatment between conditions formally accepted by the Commonwealth?
Mr Kefford: Again, no. We gave evidence earlier today about the ability, particularly in complex cases, for there to be additional thresholds. The point of having the $5,000 threshold is to ensure that treatment is effective, and there’s an undertaking in the announcement for there to be consultation on the basis on which that additional funding will be provided.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the TPI gold card holders with multiple accepted conditions be exempt from any aggregate cap, consistent with existing exemptions for physiotherapy and exercise physiology?
Mr Brown: No. Exceptions to the cap will be considered on a basis of clinical need. Many of the cohort that you’re referring to would potentially meet that requirement, but that will be subject to a consultation process around the design with the veteran community and provider groups.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s not designed yet?
Mr Brown: The process for veteran card holders to go above the $5,000 annual monetary limit where there is a clinical need has not been designed yet. This measure commences on 1 July 2027, and we’ve got that lead-in time to do that consultation work.
Senator ROBERTS: What objective criteria will DVA use to determine when funding above $5,000 will be approved, and how will veterans be informed of their eligibility?
Mr Kefford: The focus, as we’ve said, will be on clinical need and effectiveness of the treatment, and the announced consultation process, once it has been concluded and the arrangements have been confirmed, will be communicated to veterans so they can understand the operation of the new arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: How will they be communicated?
Mr Kefford: In our usual mechanisms.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, that’s what bothers a lot of veterans.
Mr Kefford: We use our Vetaffairs newspaper, our social media and other presences, as well as the formal publication of the outcomes of the consultation process, as we’ve done for other similar ones.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a collection of microservice organisations, as well as the RSL, that you can send it to?
Mr Kefford: Indeed. We would normally engage with the ex-service community as well—ex-service organisations.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of W Edwards Deming?
Mr Kefford: No, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: He was famous, globally, as a management consultant; he died at the age of 95. He said that 95 per cent of problems are not with individuals but with the system. How have you approached the design of the new policy? My point is that you’ve got a problem. There’s some fraud going on—I accept that; wherever there’s money, there are tendencies for some fraud. But the majority of doctors and the majority of veterans are honest and caring people. Has there been any thought to, rather than punishing everyone or limiting everyone, putting a severe punishment on the few miscreants?
Ms Frame: As we explained earlier this morning, the measure will benefit most veterans in terms of providing them with clearer, up-to-date insights on who they are seeing and where they are up to with their cap. They will have that on MyService, which is a facility they don’t have now. They will have the benefit of more providers. We anticipate there will be more providers availing themselves of the increased rates that are also part of the measure, and we have designed the consideration around $5,000. The policy objective of that threshold of $5,000 is to ensure the maximal effectiveness of the treatment that veterans are receiving. It provides a way by which we can assure the veteran that the providers who are delivering them services are accountable for genuine improvements in their condition and not just delivering services in perpetuity that aren’t subject to any checks and assurances that they are affecting real improvements in veteran wellbeing.
Mr Brown: I reiterate the evidence I gave earlier today that, of those veteran cardholders who access allied health services with those veteran cards, the average amount of services they provide, based on historical data, is around $3½ thousand per annum, so the $5,000 cap is adequate to facilitate allied health services for the majority of veterans accessing those services through card arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Averages can be really misleading and deceptive. They can hide things. I’m not accusing you of hiding things, but averages—that’s a fact. What percentage of—
Senator McAllister: He has the median as well. There are a number of statistical indicators. You may enjoy this.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re partial indicators.
Mr Brown: We have a number of high-end users that skew that average. The median is $1,900 without those high-end users skewing that average.
Senator ROBERTS: What percentage of veterans go over $5,000 in a year?
Mr Brown: It fluctuates, but it’s between eight and 12 per cent, so roughly one in 10 of the eligible population.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a sizeable number nonetheless. That skews. It distorts. Have you built systems— or are you still building systems—to take care of that 10 per cent’s needs?
Mr Brown: That would be the process that we’ll build off the back of the consultation that will occur over the next 12 months to ensure that we’re meeting the clinical needs of those veteran cardholders who require an amount over the $5,000 threshold.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’ve found in my career is that humans are not afraid of change. People misleadingly say that humans are afraid of change. What they’re afraid of is uncertainty. Is there anything you can do to make things less uncertain for veterans who are worried?
Ms Frame: I announced in my opening statement this morning that we will be doing this consultation. We have conveyed that. We will be consulting on the mechanism, but we have also put a section on our website in the last week that responds to miscommunications, what is coming to us about the veteran community and where they have fears about how the measure will be affected. As we said, it hasn’t started yet, but we are doing our best to proactively engage with that and put up-to-the-minute information that responds directly to where we see misinformation and misapprehension circulating in the veteran community to address that exact uncertainty and provide as much information as we are able to at this point in time.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you consulting with any veterans to design the communications before you release the communications? This is not meant disrespectfully. It’s meant with complete respect. Your environment is different from the veterans’ environment. Your language is different. Are you using veterans to guide you in the messaging? That seems to be a big problem.
Ms Frame: No, not directly with that communication as I understand it at the moment. It is based on direct feedback from veterans, so we’re looking at exactly what they are saying and using their own language and terminology in our responses as much as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: So veterans will be required to apply for additional funding. What evidence will be required, and how long will approvals take? Is that still being designed?
Mr Kefford: That’s the nub of the consultation, which will involve a process of both presentations from us and submissions from individuals as well as professional organisations. So that will be worked through, and it will be communicated once it’s been settled.
Senator ROBERTS: Will there be regular updates and communications?
Mr Kefford: Indeed.
Senator ROBERTS: What appeal mechanisms will exist if DVA declines to fund clinically necessary care above the cap? That’s still part of the process being designed, I take it.
Mr Brown: That will be considered during the design process, but it’s not going to be an administrative decision made under any primary legislation. We’ll consider that issue during consultation, but it’s unlikely—I don’t want to speculate too much—that it will be appealable through our normal administrative decision-making processes.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any ideas on how it will be appealable?
Mr Brown: No. I don’t want to speculate further about what the process might look like ahead of a consultation period.
Mr Kefford: Mr Brown’s absolutely correct. I would say two things. First of all, the intention here, as the secretary has outlined, is to ensure that allied health is clinically appropriate and effective. And the purpose of having the process that we’re describing is to ensure that, particularly, those veterans who have more complex needs are properly cared for and receive the support and rehabilitation that they need.
Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has the government made of the risk that a capped funding model will further reduce provider willingness to treat veterans, given existing concerns about low DVA fee schedules? I’ve had a number of doctors say this is insane.
Mr Kefford: Part of the measure is, directly to that point, to actually increase allied health fees. One hundred and sixty-seven, is it, Luke?
Mr Brown: It’s 169—$170 million in round numbers.
Mr Kefford: And that’s intended to encourage more providers to provide services to veterans. That’s been welcomed by a number of bodies, and we tabled a letter from the physiotherapists association—that’s not the proper title—this morning.
Mr Brown: For example, as part of that measure, for a face-to-face standard room consultation with a physiotherapist, our fee will increase from $75.10 to $110. Those fee increases apply across the board to allied health providers.
Senator ROBERTS: How does the government reconcile the introduction of a monetary ceiling with the royal commission’s finding that barriers to healthcare access contribute to veteran suicide risk?
Mr Kefford: A part of the measure is to, below that threshold, actually remove the requirement for the treatment cycles that currently exist and to provide that flexibility, recognising that the threshold’s been set with regard to what is normal usage, but then to have a process to ensure that necessary treatment is available and that treatment that’s provided is clinically appropriate.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the government accept that veterans with numerous accepted conditions will exhaust the cap more quickly than those with a single injury, despite both having conditions recognised as service caused?
Mr Kefford: That would be the logical conclusion, and that’s why we’re having a process of—the $5,000 limit is a threshold at which point there can be further decisions about clinically necessary care that needs to be provided.
Senator McAllister: I think it’s worth—just in response to your last three or four questions, Senator—putting the whole measure in context. The royal commission did say that the government should take steps to improve access to health care, including by raising the charging or the provisioning for procuring allied health services. This measure does that; it raises the fees. It also seeks to remove some of the administrative hurdles for veterans by removing the treatment cycle, which will remove some of the impediments to people procuring the services that they want for their own needs. And, as Ms Frame said, it also will allow us to invest in some digital systems that will let veterans see what services they’ve already used and what resources might be available to them. So the context for this is actually a broad measure to improve access to allied health across the sector.
Senator ROBERTS: What safeguards exist to prevent the cap from disproportionately harming veterans with complex, chronic or degenerative conditions?
Mr Brown: Part of the measure that’s been announced by the government is that, where there’s a clinical need to access allied health services above the $5,000 cap, that will be provided.
Senator ROBERTS: What transitional provisions will be put in place to ensure veterans do not experience sudden loss of access to essential treatment when the cap begins in July 2027? This is a source of pretty severe mental health pressure. Is there a transitional arrangement?
Mr Kefford: The detail of, particularly, the mechanism by which veterans will seek additional funding above that first threshold is the nub of the consultation process. I’m sure the concerns that you’re raising will be aired in that context.
Senator ROBERTS: When will clear, written guidance be issued to veterans and providers explaining how the cap will operate in practice? Do you have a scheduled time or an approximate time?
Mr Kefford: The undertaking is that the consultations will commence in August. We haven’t set a conclusion or detailed timeline for that yet, but certainly the intention would be to have arrangements clear and able to be communicated well in advance of 1 July.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we understand what you’re trying to do, but I don’t think the message has got out from the department, the DVA, as clearly as possible, because $5,000 is seen by many veterans as pitifully and ridiculously small. It’s an insult. How much of this is a cost-cutting exercise to get your government through the hoops with regard to the waste and hypocrisy that it’s shown—
Senator McAllister: I indicated to you earlier—
Senator ROBERTS: across all budget areas.
Senator McAllister: that our goal is to ensure that veterans have access to the allied health treatment they need in a timely way, and to make sure that the services they’re being provided are clinically effective. One of the consequences of creating a system where very large quantities of services are procured from the private sector by individuals is that we see the emergence of some behaviours in that market that are not in the best interests of veterans. At the worst end of it, it looks like fraud: claiming for services that were never delivered. Stepping a few clicks back from that, sometimes it looks like overservicing: making a set of recommendations for which there is no clinical evidence and from which the individual doesn’t see a material benefit in their own health and wellbeing. We judge that, given what we know about the use of these services by veterans, most veterans are using well under that $5,000 limit. When we see veterans experiencing higher rates, we think it’s appropriate for there to be a threshold to evaluate whether what’s on offer to that person is genuinely going to assist them. We have every intention of ensuring people do get the healthcare services they need, and this reform is about a multipronged approach to make sure that’s true, both for the people whose needs are at lower levels of intensity and for the people whose needs are at the higher level.
Senator ROBERTS: This government has developed a reputation for wasteful spending and loose spending, and people are concerned about that. It seems to me that there’s a lot of work going on, but the root causes are resignation among the veterans that nothing concrete has been done, and there’s so much fear. I think it’s a matter of not only what you just stipulated as your desire and what your targets are but how it’s being done—the process. Would you agree?
Senator McAllister: I don’t agree with many of the things you said. Our government in each and every budget have found savings so that we can prioritise the things that we care about and that we know the community cares about. One of those areas of investment has in fact been in DVA, because we came to government knowing that it was significantly underprovisioned and that the lack of staff, in particular, in this organisation had led to unconscionable delays in people being able to access the services that they deserve as veterans. We’ve set about addressing that, and there’s a lot to be proud of in the work that’s been done by the many people who work in this department and the collaborative way that the veterans community has engaged in that work to make sure that we do improve the service level that’s available.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WOLD4gV430g/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-06-24 18:42:572026-06-24 18:43:01Veterans Face New $5,000 Care Restriction
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.
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.
