Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 1:09:17 to 1:19:34
Senators examine whether defense headquarters ignored data regarding rising fatalities and kinetic operations during successive deployments to Afghanistan.
Topics: Integrity, ADF, National security
Speakers: David Shoebridge, Mark Hammond, Meghan Quinn, Unknown Speaker, Raff Ciccone
that is that is I'm happy you're taking that on notice, but your answer again mischaracterized this this report as being only related to junior officers on the ground. There are repeated references to headquarters um having data that should have alerted them to the fact that something very bad was happening in Afghanistan. Um, one of the one of the elements of that was for um the reference to the the higher rate of kinetic operations and and it's this with each successive deployment the number of Afghanistan deaths and collateral damage increased whether through enhanced insurgent activity an unhealthy familiarity with the operating environment or the presence of hubris. The inference could be drawn that appetites for kinetic operations grew at the expense of winning over the local population. Now that data was available to headquarters. The fact that more and more Afghan deaths were happening in the course of each deployment and you you kept sending the same people back for tour after tour after tour and and and the deaths were rising. Headquarters was aware of that. headquarters made the decision to continue to send the same people into Afghanistan and nobody in headquarters has been held accountable to that. How is that the case that the yes people who have engaged in war crimes are being pro who potentially engaged in war crimes are being prosecuted. That's what should happen. But headquarters made the decision to keep sending the same people in in deeply traumatizing traumatizing situations. The data is coming out about what happens and everybody in headquarters just walks away with retirement packages and promotions and nothing, no accountability. That's what makes people so angry about this. Why is nobody in headquarters held to
>> Senator, again, you're talking about historical issues which predate my tenure. What I can state is that I agree with the findings of the rec of the IGAF. I I reject the the fact that uh people should be able to um uh behave that way and get away with it. Uh I'm I'm absolutely in agreement. This isn't that there are serious um failures here that need to be addressed. Ultimately, those recommendations have been made to my predecessors. They've been actioned. Uh recommendations have been made to the Australian government.
>> Your predecessor was in the chain of command. Your predecessor was in the exact same chain of command. He was out for for a significant part of his career out in that operation space and he was in the chain of command. That's again why people are saying how can we have faith in the response? We now know that there's all these um concerns about what headquarters knew or should have known. And you keep pointing back to your predecessor who was in the chain of command at the time. Senator,
the last point you said at the time the the the >> the period that this report is looking at is is both in some context linked longitudinal. It it talks to um a greater period of time that the periods that the war crimes are looking at is in a a much more discreet port point of time. So I would just um acknowledge that we had many commanders circulate through the Afghanistan conflict in different locations during different times and absolutely the majority of operations and um and personnel who served in Afghanistan did so with complete professionalism and acquitted themselves to the high to meet the highest expectations of the Australian people and the Australian Defense Force. Well, these particular issues have been completely investigated. Some of them remain um uh under active consideration by the Office of the Special Investigator. Uh I've offered to take on notice questions as to what accountability actions have been um uh executed by the department before. I'm in no position to um uh to take action against my predecessor in Done with it.
>> Okay. Um well uh Admiral Hammond, I was taking issue with your statement earlier about junior officers and and you've you've you've heard we've had the exchange about headquarters. We're clearly not of one mind about that. Um, but another key part in this finding that goes well beyond your positioning of it being about junior officers on the ground is the finding that and it's finding 21. Some legal officers and intelligent intelligence officers may have facilitated the concealment of misconduct through production of reporting and adjustment of intelligence. Um, it is not clear to us whether this was inadvertent or not. um has any any action been taken in relation to legal officers and intelligence officers as a result of these findings?
>> So, Sen Senator, many of those officers would have been Australian public service members who were also serving in the field >> and I'm happy to take that question on
notice. Well, and I also referenced paragraph 39 of the report. And I'd ask you both to take on notice because I understand some legal officers were uniformed, some intelligence officers were uniformed, some were in the department. So, I'd ask you both to take it on notice. Um, paragraph 39 also um of the report talks about the relationships and and the preceding bits the relationships between the special operations task groups and the intelligence and legal officers who are meant to be um uh providing some independent review about it. Now it says this, it is not suggested that legal or intelligence officers consciously facilitated misconduct. However, it seems clear that some obstructed the proper investigative mechanisms, including by the Provice Marshall ADF, with the government system that may have allowed misconduct to have been detected within the government system that may have allowed misconduct to have been I know you accept these findings, um, Admiral Hammond. Do you accept the
the findings go to the operational training and support and and oversight mechanisms and all of that uh we will incorporate into uh reviews and consideration of how things are structured. Now we do take seriously the IGAF reports. It's an excellent mechanism to provide oversight of activities in the department and in the defense forces. Of course, we take it seriously, Senator, and we will take into account as we review all the mechanisms and supports we put when we put people in harm's way, we need to make sure that the systems are supporting them.
>> Yeah. But one of the key reasons the IGAF didn't delve further into these individual instances of misconduct was because the IGAF didn't want to prejudice potential or or or or current uh criminal proceedings that are being under underway. But the department has an obligation to investigate this. The department has an obligation to see whether or not any legal or intelligence officers employed by the department obstructed the proper investigative me mechanisms including by the provice marshall. Has the department done that?
>> I'm happy to take that on notice
>> and and Admiral Hammond to the extent that these individuals were uniformed the same obligation lies upon you and and and the the three services. Um, has the ADF undertaken that?
>> Again, Senator, I I I agree that the behavior you're describing is completely unacceptable. I'm I'm quite happy to take the question on notice. Uh, and I I would would like to speak to the current expectations on command accountability. I am absolutely of the view that that commanders should be inquisitive. You get what you inspect, not what you expect. Uh and over the last three years in my in my previous role, eight people in command positions have been removed from those positions for failure to meet those expectations and requirements. So Senator, this is something we agree on. Absolutely agree with you that there should be the highest standards of expectation with respect to our behavior uh um the performance of our senior leaders and we should be inquisitive. Senator, to take those questions on notice on the historical matters you're talking about?
>> Can I say this? If there has been effective and real consequences taken against more senior officers, if there has been any effective action taken against people in headquarters both in the special operations task group and um in in defense headquarters here, well then there's an obligation to tell not just the public at large, there's an obligation to tell the ADF community because the thing that is eroding ing faith and trust in what's happening at the moment is this this seeming accountability gap between what happens if you don't have gold braid on your shoulders where the book gets thrown at you and I'm not in any way criticizing accountability for war crimes that absolute or potential war crimes and those crimes that absolutely should happen but it's the accountability gap it's this between the people on the ground and the people who are in leadership positions who are either aware of it or had the data that should have triggered um um that and and not taken action. It's that accountability gap that is eroding trust and the most if you have evidence of any accountability being taken against senior officers that would go some way to assist that accountability gap but in the absence of that it will continue to grow.
>> All right, on that note, uh Senator