Posts

ABC Never Apologise When Called Out

,

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? 

Ms Amorelli: To my knowledge, no. 

/4 Comments/by

End Secrecy in Defence

,

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) 

/by

Defence Deflects and Distracts from Royal Commission Results

,

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then I asked her: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I asked her: 

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Backing Our Diggers Means Holding the Brass Accountable

,

A report revealed from a motion I put into the Senate, that the government kept a helicopter flying for more than 5 years with a defective engine part.

That MRH-90 helicopter that crashed in Jervis Bay without any fatalities was a stroke of luck. Four months later, another helicopter crashed in the Whitsundays, resulting in the death of four Defence personnel. This report reveals that senior “leadership” of Defence was willing to put people’s lives at risk with defective engine parts. The question must be asked – how many other risks were they willing to overlook or explain away?

One Nation backs our Defence Personnel.  The Government can’t claim they do unless they hold senior members of the Defence Department accountable for their failures.

Transcript

I rise to speak on the document produced in response to order for the production of documents No. 200. This order relates to the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash in Jervis Bay in May 2023. The helicopter call sign Bushman 82 was hovering low to water on a training exercise, with divers suspended below, when it experienced a catastrophic failure of its left-hand engine. The helicopter ditched into the water—in a stroke of luck, without any fatalities. Just one month later, Defence gave the MRH-90 helicopter a completely clean bill of health and authorised it to continue flying. The Senate agreed to this OPD in May 2023, requiring Defence to hand over any safety reports and documents in relation to the crash. We wanted to know how Defence had certified the helicopter as safe so quickly after such a significant incident. In defiance of the order of this Senate, the Minister for Defence refused to hand over any documents, citing an ongoing internal investigation, despite the helicopter already being back in the air, threatening lives. The government and Defence advised that that investigation should conclude in October 2023. 

In June 2023, a month after, the Senate reiterated its order for the documents in motion 243, with a new deadline of November in accordance with the advice of the government. We gave them a go. They failed to produce even a response to that order until the Senate sought an explanation in December of 2023. We can see how time marches on and is irrelevant to Defence. 

Now we fast forward to September 2024, 18 months after the crash and nearly a year after the government promised to respond. We finally have a response and documents, yet it is not a compliant response. It’s a redacted version of an executive summary to a single report. The order very clearly specified ‘all incident reports, safety evaluations, briefing notes, correspondence and information held by the Department of Defence, the defence minister or the defence minister’s office’. The executive summary to one report clearly doesn’t satisfy this request. 

Minister, where are your briefing notes? Where is your correspondence? Are you telling the Senate that you and your office had nothing to say about the Jervis Bay ditching? The executive summary is dated 2 August 2024. That’s three months and two weeks ago. Did Defence sit on this report before giving it to the minister? Why the delay? The six pages of redacted executive summary we do have are from the Defence Flight Safety Bureau’s aviation safety investigation report. From what we do have, a few things are clear: 

The engine failure was caused by the rupture of Blade 34 from the High Pressure 1 (HP1) wheel in the High Pressure Turbine (HPT). 

They know the cause. Another quote reads: 

… in 2017, as a result of several HP1 failures across the global fleet, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) issued a NH90 Service Bulletin recommending that operators … replace HP 1 blades with modified blades. 

Another quote reads: 

The investigation highlighted that there was no definitive evidence of the completion and recording of hazard analysis and safety risk assessments related to HP 1 failures during MRH-90 PCS operations. 

Defence decided to keep flying the helicopters without the modified parts and eventually get around to it while failing to consider and document the risk that these things would lose an engine during low-level flight because of this. In 2023, five years after the bulletin was given to Defence, Bushman 82 was still flying in Jervis Bay, without the recommended modified parts. 

This report, while not compliant with the Senate’s order, is important because it again demonstrates Defence was willing to overlook serious risks when it came to this helicopter—risks involving lives. How many other problems with the MRH-90 helicopter did Defence overlook? How many times did they allow this thing back in the air, knowing it would unnecessarily put our defence personnel at needless risk? How many potentially catastrophic issues, like the TopOwl headset, were supposedly mitigated or did Defence just explain away? 

These documents are important because this helicopter should have been pulled from service a decade ago. The MRH-90 should have been permanently grounded after Bushman 82 ditched into Jervis Bay—the latest, at the time, of a series of incidents. It wasn’t pulled from service, and, four months later, Bushman 83 crashed in the Whitsundays, resulting in the death of four personnel: Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Phillip Laycock—Phil, as he was known; troop commander Captain Danniel Lyon; Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent; and Corporal Alexander Naggs. May they rest in peace. Blood is on the hands of the Defence leadership and successive defence ministers who kept this helicopter in the air when it belonged on the ground. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 

Leave granted; debate adjourned. 

News Article from The Australian

/1 Comment/by

Government Strips Medals Over Brereton Report Allegations

,

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?

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

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

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

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

/3 Comments/by

Angry Veterans Demand Revocation of Angus Campbell’s Medal

,

There is no specific evidence that Angus Campbell was “in action” which is the criteria required for his medal at the time of his nomination.

The honours and awards system has been abused, with senior officers and generals giving medals to each other, while frontline soldiers who faced direct enemy fire must fight yet again, this time for the recognition they rightfully deserve.

This issue goes far deeper than General Campbell. It’s time to clean out all the rot at the highest levels of the Defence Force.

Read article here: Angry vets plea for Labor to revoke Angus Campbell’s Afghanistan medal, saying he did not see enough action | The Nightly

/by

Inquiry to Probe Outgoing Defence Chief’s Medal

,

A powerful Senate Inquiry established into the Defence medals system has opened for submissions. 

The inquiry initiated by my motion will investigate potentially illegal medals awarded to senior Defence officers, the experiences of ADF personnel and potential improvements to the Defence Awards and Honours system. 

Read my full media release below.

The terms of reference for the inquiry are available on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade website: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/DefenceHonours47/Terms_of_Reference 

Make a submission to the inquiry: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/DefenceHonours47  

How to make a submission (including how to make a confidential submission): https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/How_to_make_a_submission  

Media ReleaseDownload
/by

Senate Motion Spurs Urgent Inquiry into Defence Awards System

,

I joined Peter Fegan of 4BC Radio to discuss the inquiry into the defence honours and awards system due to my motion being passed in the Senate recently.

The morale within the ADF is alarmingly low, reaching a level that could severely impact our future security.

There is a prevailing sentiment among ADF personnel that the senior leaders are not accountable. The top brass are abandoning enlisted members and veterans, while taking credit for achievements that aren’t rightfully theirs.

4BC Weekends with Peter Fegan: https://www.4bc.com.au/show/weekends-with-spencer-howson/

/by

Senate Condemns War Memorial Defacement

,

On 29 June, protestors vandalised War Memorials in Canberra.  These disgusting acts must be condemned. 

Freedom of speech and protest are fundamental parts of our democracy. Spray painting memorials of dead soldiers is neither of these.

I joined with Senators Lambie and Hanson in strongly condemning the defacement of war memorials by pro-palestinian protestors, which insults both current and former Australian Defence Force personnel and disrespects the memorials’ significance as national symbols of pride and remembrance. 

This divisive campaign by the Greens undermines Australia’s respect for our defence forces and reflects an anti-Australian agenda. Vandalism of these memorials is an affront to our country’s values and those who serve to protect them. 

We stand in solidarity with service men and women, their families, and all Australians who honour their sacrifice.

Transcript

One Nation supports this motion, and I’ll read it again: 

That the Senate condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protestors which is deeply insulting for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and remembrance. 

It undermines the very core and heart of our beautiful country, and the Australian people. It undermines the respect we have, as a nation and as individuals, for the service of so many caring Australians in our defence forces, past and present, and it reveals the pro-Palestinian protesters’ true, anti-Australian agenda. I join with Senator Lambie and Senator Hanson in condemning the Greens for this divisive campaign that they are pushing based on ideology and harvesting votes. It is essentially treason—defacing and desecrating our country and what we stand for. Australians, whatever their views of the wars we’ve engaged in, take pride in and honour our service men and women. 

I recall a friend of mine; when we were in our 20s, he made the off-the-cuff comment that he despised the War Memorial because it was a memorial to the glory of war. I said: ‘No, no. It’s not. It’s a memorial to the service that men and women have given in supporting and defending this country and what we stand for.’ He has gone on to be a proud grandfather, with two boys now serving in the Army and a daughter serving in the police force of Queensland. He has children and grandchildren who have served and are serving our country. 

Free speech, as Senator Cash pointed out, is not vandalism and desecration, which is the violation of property rights and must be punished. To all service men and women and their families and relatives: thank you. We will vote in favour of this motion to condemn the acts of defacing war memorials in your name. 

/2 Comments/by

Supporting Our Heroes: A Long Chat with Dylan Conway and Michael Lorrigan

,

It was a pleasure to have a long chat with two fantastic veterans, Dylan Conway from the charity Brothers and Books and Michael Lorrigan of Two 14 Coffee Company, to talk all things Defence and Veterans

You won’t want to miss the incredible story of what these gentlemen are doing for the Australian community.

/1 Comment/by