Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 56:14 to 1:05:20
Senator Shoebridge questions the Chief of the Defence Force regarding leadership accountability following the IGADF inquiry into Afghanistan operations.
Topics: Workplace culture, ADF, National security
Speakers: David Shoebridge, Mark Hammond, Hon Murray Watt, Unknown Speaker
>> Um, oh, thanks, Chair. Um, and thanks all for your attendance. Um, Admiral Hammond, have you reviewed the executive summary of the IG ADF's uh inquiry into the cultural context in which command over special operations task groups or special forces personnel was exercised in Afghanistan?
>> Hey, good morning, Senator Admiral
has any disciplinary action been taken to anyone in a leadership position as a result of the findings of this inquiry?
>> Senator, those findings and recommendations were actioned by my predecessors. Uh, all departmental actions relevant to that inquiry have been completed. Uh, uh, referrals made where necessary to government. Uh, and I have no additional testimony to add to add to my predecessors.
Well, previously we didn't have this inquiry. It was only post We didn't have this do report. It was only posted this week by the IGAF. Um, are you saying you're unable to advise whether anyone in a leadership position within either special operations command or in defense headquarters um has been disciplined, demoted, or in other ways brought to account as a result of the findings in this inquiry and the matters contained
in them. Senator, there's been previous testimony on accountability for commanders uh and previous statements made in committee by my predecessors. What I can say is that some actions were referred to the Australian government by former CDFs uh and I wasn't part of that process. Uh as I understand it, all actions relevant to implementing the recommendations of that report were completed by my
that's all well and good, but I'm going to read you out a number of the findings here and I'm going to ask if any action was taken. One of the findings um well, one of the parts summaries of issues from the IGF is this. There was also a significant failure of good leadership and effective command within the special air service regiment, the special operations task group and special operations command in the period of question. Uh this was particularly evident in failures to address discipline and compliance before and during the Afghanistan deployment. Ultimately, these matters contributed to an environment that enabled those who chose to engage in the serious misconduct identified by the IGAF Afghanistan inquiry. And to be clear, the serious misconduct included unlaw allegations of unlawful killings at significant scale. Do you agree with that finding that there was a significant failure of good leadership
nothing to contest the findings or or recommendations of the Inspector General ADF report, which is again, it's been actioned by my predecessors. I understand I remember General Campbell providing testimony on this, including uh making recommendations to government regarding honors and awards. Uh I understand that previous actions have included accountability for uh personnel in leadership positions in those operations. The report also highlights that the deliberate attempts were made to obscure the facts from higher command and the IGF therefore came to a conclusion that there was a limit to which a personnel could be held
>> Well, you must be reading a different report to the one I'm reading. Admiral, what about this? Signs of broader decline appear to have been evident to some in higher headquarters. there was no effective intervention and this decline was allowed to continue suggest an absence of effective leadership at various Um do you deny that finding?
>> No sir.
>> Senator, I I just heard um Admiral Hammond say words to the effect that he accepted what was in that report. So I don't know that there's any point asking him whether he disagrees with particular findings. He's
>> accepted that. Admiral Hammond, you said words to the effect that this report found that there was no basis upon which to hold um leadership to account and therefore leadership had not been held. I assume that's one of the reasons you held you have not held leadership to account. Did I misunderstand your
>> Senator? Again, we're dealing with a historical issue that predates my tenure here. The deputy prime minister advised parl on the 12th of September 2024 that he had written to relevant commanders about his ret his decision in in relation to medals awarded to them as part of their service during periods approximately incidents which the heart of the Buritan report. General Campbell provided um multiple uh um statements uh to various committee hearings about taking action uh um with respect to commanders involved in in the time frame you're talking about which is we're talking about u in many instances more than 15
years ago. Um, General Campbell never once identified a single commissioned officer who had been held to account, disciplined, or had any adverse action taken against. And there's not been a single instance of a commissioned officer, anyone in a leadership position being held to account. How could that possibly be given what we read in this
>> Have to refer that to General Campbell.
No, I'm referring it to the current chief of the defense force. That's you,
>> Senator. If you want me to look into historical actions against individuals, of of course that's a different question. Senator, what's your question?
>> No, I would like to know whether or not anyone in a leadership position was held to account because of what they what they knew. Can I tell you I'll give you another report. There was tangible data available for higher headquarters through trends in growing numbers of enemy killed in action. This included growth and spikes in these statistics over time as well as features such as a lack of wounded insurgents only deaths and the lack of ADF casualties. By historical standards, elements of this data presented as most unusual. Some commanders were alerted to this data um um and rumors that accompanied while others were not. This may suggest an abandonment of curiosity. Was this data available about the number of deaths, the absence of wounded, the the absence of ADF casualties? Was this available to higher headquarters? And why wasn't any action taken?
>> Senator, I'll have to take that on notice. What I c what I can talk to is what has been done since the since the inquiry report with respect to improving command accountability across the service within the Australian Defense Force. the introduction of appointment to command certificate to provide greater accountability of commanders and just in the last three months I've replaced the ADF uh chiefs of service committee system with the ADF command board system and our very first day in in jobs the respective service chiefs and I had a very long conversation to defense academy about command accountability but your questions go to historical issues I'm happy to take them on notice and uh and come back to you
>> well my primary question which isn't just being asked by me it's being asked by uh current serving members of the ADF. It's asked by um uh retired members of the ADF and the veterans community. They are saying well if if headquarters was aware of the deaths was aware of these reports if if commissioned officers and the headquarters of the special operations team was aware of this why is it only non-commissioned officers that are being held to account and prosecuted and why is nobody in a position of being a commissioned officer being held to account >> that's the question that's being asked and it's eroding confidence in the ADF.
There there are two parts there to to your statement, Senator. One one is being prosecuted. >> Okay. And that is different to being held to account. I acknowledge there is some overlap. It is true to say that there are no commissioned officers being prosecuted. Uh what I can state that the Breton report and the subsequent investigations have focused on evidence availability that's led to charges and that will be dealt through in accordance with the Australian legal system. when it comes to command accountability, uh your assertion that that no other no commissioned officer has had consequences uh amounting to being held to accountable is is something that I can't speak to because I haven't been involved in that process. If you um I'm quite happy to take that question on notice. Have uh senior officers or have commissioned officers as I understand it um had consequences amounting to to accountability? Yes. >> Is that your question, Senator?
>> Well, that is one of my questions. If so, can you identify if if by name by name and rank, but if not by name, then by rank and the consequences that were t that were put in put in place.
>> I'll take that on notice, Senator.