Documents reveal the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner Paul Brereton had a conflict of interest and recused himself from proceedings related to the Robodebt scandal. Or did he? Michelle Fahy and Elizabeth Minter investigate.

The decision by the National Anti-Corruption Commission not to investigate the six public servants over the Robodebt scandal appears to have been “infected by the bias of Commissioner Justice Paul Brereton and, if so, should now be disregarded”, says Stephen Charles AO KC, a former judge at the Victorian Court of Appeal and a former board member of the Centre of Public Integrity.

Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes recommended in a sealed section of her final report that the public servants be referred to the NACC for civil action or criminal prosecution.

Documents released under Freedom of Information to Jommy Tee (researcher, writer and MWM contributor) reveal significant mismanagement by Commissioner Brereton of a major conflict of interest underlying the NACC’s decision not to investigate the Robodebt referrals,

raising serious concerns about the viability of Justice Brereton remaining as the NACC’s top official.

The documents show that within three days of the NACC commencing operations, Commissioner Brereton had declared a potential conflict in a top-level meeting because one of the referred individuals was “well-known to him.”

Early drafts of the minutes from the meeting show that Brereton was not going to be involved “in the consideration of the material.” By the final draft, however, the wording was significantly watered down to Brereton not being involved in the “decision-making.”

In a letter to Attorney General Mark Dreyfus the following month, Brereton said he would “recuse myself from decision-making concerning [an undisclosed person].”

RoboDebt Royal Commission: Kathryn Campbell must be first to go

The recusal that wasn’t

Brereton uses the word “recusal” numerous times when explaining his management of his conflict of interest, but the evidence shows he did not undertake an actual “recusal”.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines recusal as “the withdrawal of a judge, prosecutor, or juror from a case on the grounds that they are unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality/” In other words, the person steps away entirely from the matter and has no further involvement.

Stephen Charles states: “When a judge in court proceedings recuses himself because of such a conflict, that judge does not – must not – take any further part in the proceedings; otherwise, any decision by the court is likely to be stained by his involvement and set aside for the judge’s bias.”

In an email on 16 August 2023, Commissioner Brereton wrote that notwithstanding his position of conflict, it is “important and appropriate that I be aware of what is happening.”

Furthermore, at a meeting on 19 October 2023, Commissioner Brereton referred to his previously disclosed conflict relating to [an undisclosed person] and then stated that: “he would not be the decision maker for the matters,” but that he would “make comments as the matter was discussed.”

According to Charles: “The documents show that Commissioner Brereton believed that, notwithstanding his position of conflict, it was ‘important and appropriate’ that he be ‘aware of what is happening’.” Brereton also stated that “it is perfectly normal to receive and read evidence and then not take it into account because it is not admissible, etc.”

Charles continues: “It can be assumed from these comments that Commissioner Brereton believed that since he would not be the ultimate decision-maker, he was entitled to be present during discussions of whether the NACC should receive and act on Commissioner Holmes’s matters and also make comments, thus intervening in the discussion.”

“If this is a correct assessment of the Commissioner’s views and the manner in which NACC made its decision not to act on the Robodebt matters, they are contrary to well-established legal principle and simply cannot be justified.”

NACC’s decision was infected by the Commissioner’s bias and should now be disregarded.

In explaining Brereton’s ongoing involvement, the NACC said that the Commissioner had “a legitimate and important interest in the legal, policy, systems and resourcing issues raised by the Robodebt royal commission referrals.”

“The conflict was managed by delegating responsibility for making the decision to an experienced deputy commissioner, who had no conflict,” the NACC said.

Robodebt Royal Commission

On 7 July 2023, Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes presented her report on Robodebt, which included a sealed chapter that recommended a number of individuals be referred for civil and criminal prosecution.

When announcing its decision on the Robodebt matter, a statement from the NACC on 6 June 2024 revealed that its top official, Commissioner Paul Brereton, had declared a conflict of interest in relation to Robodebt, but the NACC and Brereton refused to provide any details about it.

It is widely accepted that the former head of the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, who was heavily involved in establishing and implementing the unlawful Robodebt scheme and subject to extensive questioning at the Royal Commission, is one of the six people referred to the NACC.

We have reported on the relationship between Commissioner Brereton and Kathryn Campbell, who served together over many years as senior officers in the Australian Army Reserve, both attaining the rank of major general. Our report included photos of the two together, originally published by independent journalist Shane Dowling.

One reason the NACC gave for not pursuing the matter was because of “the oppression involved in subjecting individuals to repeated investigations.”

The FOI documents confirm that Brereton had a “close association” with one of the six people referred to the NACC, later revealed to be related to his service in the army reserve, and that the person was “well known” to Brereton. These details all point towards the person in question being Kathryn Campbell.

The NACC’s decision on Robodebt is being investigated by NACC inspector Gail Furness.

Robodebt and Robododger: PwC’s consulting operation revealed

Conflict of interest

The documents obtained through FOI show Commissioner Brereton flagged his potential conflict of interest on July 3, three days after the NACC opened for business. Four days later, he formally advised NACC colleagues of his conflict.

Email sent by Paul Brereton, 7 July 2023. Recipient names were redacted by the NACC. (From FOI document 7.)

By 16 August 2023, Commissioner Brereton has decided he should not be the decision maker in any of the Robodebt matters, but believes it is “appropriate” that he be kept abreast of the investigation.

Extract from an email sent by Paul Brereton, 16 August 2023. Recipient name was redacted by the NACC. (From FOI document 10.)

On 19 October 2023, Commissioner Brereton again referred to his conflict of interest but said he would make comments as the matter was discussed.

From the minutes of a NACC Senior Assessment Panel, Thursday 19 October 2023 at which Commissioner Brereton was chair. (From FOI document 16.)

As reported by the ABC and elsewhere, Robodebt was a “massive failure of public administration”, an “extraordinary saga” of “venality, incompetence and cowardice” and a “human tragedy”. Its 500,000-plus victims, and the broader Australian public, had a right to expect that the NACC’s consideration of the matter would be beyond reproach.

The monster that ate hope: Robodebt was a tragedy 40 years in the making

This post was originally published on Michael West.

What will it take to give whistleblowers the kind of protection they deserve. When will women like Roxanne Mysko be saved from “a pile-on by rich white men?” Andrew Gardiner reports.

Australia’s weak whistleblower protection laws claimed another victim on this morning, when Adelaide grandmother and former truck safety compliance officer Roxanne Mysko turned herself into police in Adelaide’s north. That followed an arrest warrant yesterday issued by the South Australian Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, fatalities in crashes involving heavy trucks are up by an average of 6.1 per cent per year over the three years to March 2023, but if Roxanne’s experience is any guide, the unwritten rule appears to be: “don’t talk about it, or else”. 

Roxanne, whose whistleblowing over corner-cutting on safety and driver fatigue and the draconian response from her former employer were the subject of an MWM report in June, failed to appear in the Adelaide Supreme Court on Wednesday. Supporters say this is because she “fears for her life” in prison following alleged threats and harassment of her and her family.

She describes the four years since whistleblowing on Port Adelaide-based Express Cargo Services (ECS) – a company linked with gas giant Santos – as a “living hell” in which she was sacked, sued and on the receiving end of a police raid. 

“Roxanne is terrified, believing people can get at you in prison, but handed herself in at Elizabeth Police Station after she learned the court had issued an arrest warrant,” a supporter, Julie-Ann Finney, told MWM. “When will women like her be saved from a pile-on by rich white men?” 

Keep your trap shut

Roxanne’s legal peril comes after she raised her safety concerns to a partner trucking company of ECS which was “not an eligible recipient” under whistleblower protection laws. After the ensuing ECS civil action, Roxanne complained to that same company – in breach (contempt) of court orders – for, among other things, ‘outing’ her as the informant. 

Her indiscretions seem negligible next to the serious alleged safety breaches at ECS – breaches MWM independently learned of – which Roxanne brought to the attention of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR). These include:  

• Fatigue among company drivers and subcontractors, who are alleged to have worked up to 26 days straight (the relevant law states drivers must have a 24-hour break every seventh day);
• No safety audits of 70 subcontractors from 2007 to 2020, many in violation of Chain of Responsibility (COR) requirements which began in 2014;
• No license checks on 70 subcontractors;
• No vehicle maintenance audits over an extended period;
• Speeding by trucks supposedly limited to 90 km/h, and … 
• No documentation for all COR safety procedures for any truck or freight movement anywhere in Australia.

Such alleged breaches of safety law can be life-threatening to truckies, 188 of whom died – in heavy truck crashes alone – over the 12 months to March last year. If proven, they can incur seven-figure fines, but as things stand, it’s Roxanne who faces $350,000 in ECS legal fees awarded against her, not to mention a possible prison sentence. 

MWM dragged into Supreme Court action

MWM found itself in the middle of Wednesday’s Supreme Court of South Australia to-and-fro, when ECS lawyers argued this publisher may also be in breach of court orders after airing the allegations against ECS in its June article. In response, this reporter repeated our June assertion, contained in the same article, that it had independently learned of and researched the alleged safety breaches at ECS, and had breached no such order. 

In a June email to MWM, David Elix of 1878 lawyers cited court transcripts warning “any other person who knows of this order and does anything that helps (Ms Mysko) to disobey” it may also be imprisoned. Following the article’s publication, Elix sought a retraction, threatening an action for injurious falsehood if MWM did not publish it “within 48 hours.”

MWM did not publish a retraction, offering instead the opportunity for ECS and its lawyers to respond to questions and have their say. We are not suggesting ECS or its partner company have acted unethically or in violation of workplace or transport safety laws, and to reiterate, established the alleged facts around ECS’ safety record and subsequent conduct independently of Ms Mysko. Further, ECS has not responded to questions either prior to or after publication. 

The case of Roxanne Mysko brings into sharp focus the limitations of whistleblower legislation. Not a woman of means, Roxanne needed but couldn’t afford expensive legal advice that would have forestalled her approaching  a “non-eligible recipient” of whistleblower information, thereby avoiding the seemingly-punitive blowback that followed.  

Whistleblowing can cost much more than a lawyer’s bill if you get it wrong. “I don’t laugh anymore, have withdrawn from what was a very social, busy life (and) am now a recluse,” said Roxanne on the emotional toll the last four years have wrought.  

Roxanne is in the early stages of a High Court appeal, but is in no position to privately fund such action. She is on the lookout for pro bono representation.

Trucking deaths on the rise but safety whistleblower ignored then prosecuted

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Take Australian taxpayers’ money, ship it overseas and build groundbreaking capabilities for foreign corporations to export around the world, all at the expense of Australian innovation and jobs. Rex Patrick reports on the quantum betrayal.

On April 30 this year, almost exactly a year after the Albanese Labor Government released its National Quantum Strategy “to grow the quantum industry in Australia,” Industry Minister Ed Husic announced we were shipping just short of a billion taxpayer dollars to a US Company, Palo Alto based PsiQuantum, to build a fault-tolerant quantum computer in Brisbane.

PsiQuantum has never built a quantum computer before—it was in the same place as other companies in the Australian industry. Injecting $1B into a US company so it can get ahead of the competition in an emerging growth market is hardly growing the quantum industry in Australia. It’s quite the opposite. The Government has given a leg up to a foreign corporation, which Australian industry then has to compete against.

It’s a big ‘F’ for the Albanese government – up there with pouring $10B of Australian taxpayers’ money into the US and UK submarine industrial base, giving our gas away for free and allowing foreign criminal enterprises to inflate housing prices with crooked money. I could go on.

AUKUS submarines “nation building” says Admiral. No they’re not, says Rex Patrick

Nothing to see here

If one paid just passing attention to this quantum computing procurement, you might think everything was in order.

The Government announced its National Quantum Strategy in May 2023, released an Expression of Interest in August 2023 for a fault-tolerant quantum computer to be built in Australia, and then, in May the following year, announced the winner: PsiQuantum.

But that’s not what happened. Senate orders for the production of government documents, Senate Estimates questions, and FOI requests have uncovered some disgraceful truths. This includes the FOI’s release to MWM this month.

It turns out the fix was in from the start.

The first interaction between the Australian Government and PsiQuantum appears to have taken place in May 2019, when Austrade met with the American Company. There were some discussions then, but more substantial interaction between the Australian Government and PsiQuantum commenced after the 2022 Federal election.

Prior to December 2022, PsiQuantum submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Government. It impressed the Minister for Science and Industry, Ed Husic, sufficiently to agree to further analysis.

In January 2023, Husic visited the firm’s facilities in Palo Alto, California. The visit brief, released recently under FOI, shows that the Government was already well committed to going with PSI even at that early point.

Loading…

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

For the remaining part of the first half of 2023, some due diligence in relation to PsiQantum was undertaken by the Commonwealth and the Queensland Government.

PsiQuantum binding discussions commenced in June 2023 with the Department of Finance being engaged and with Lawyers from King & Wood Mallesons hired in July 2023 for legal, commercial, probity and technical advice.

Fraud upon Australian industry?

At this point it looked like the Government was simply going to engage in single-sourcing a very significant contract to a foreign corporation. But then the Department set about engaging in a fraud upon Australian industry.

In June 2023, they started drafting the Expression of Interest (EOI)  that was released in August 2023. The Department recently described the EOI’s purpose to the Senate:

“The EOI process tested the international and domestic quantum computing sector’s capability and interest to develop, build and operate a commercial-scale, universal fault-tolerant quantum computer in Australia by 2030 (and preferably earlier), and deliver a range of related benefits to strengthen Australia’s quantum sector and contribute to the national interest.”

Twenty-one companies devoted their time, money and efforts to respond. Many of them no doubt freely imparted their good ideas which will be used by government employees moving forward.

What they did not know was that the Minister and Department had already predetermined the path forward, and they were not to be involved in any significant way.

The EOI was both disingenuous and misleading. It was nothing short of disgraceful conduct.

Contract awarded, competitor born

On 30 April 2024 the Government announced their investment decision that PsiQuantum will establish its Asia-Pacific headquarters in Brisbane.

02 May 2024 Austrade, who is supposed to accelerate the growth of exports and attract foreign investors and stimulate, issued a press release celebrating the contract; the growth on an importer and the expenditure of taxpayer funds.

The Australian Government has injected a billion dollars into a foreign company that will forever compete with the Australian IT industry. It has engaged in a direct betrayal of Australian companies in the sector, tantamount to treason on our high-tech future.

Why did the Albanese Government do this? The decision almost certainly went to the very top of the government. Why did they betray and mislead Australian industry and our national interest? That’s a tale yet to be fully unravelled. It’s unlikely to be a very good story.

Why pay $1m when you can pay PwC $30m, and help yourself to free IP?

This post was originally published on Michael West.

The war of words between Defence Minister Richard Marles and Paul Keating belies how the US bid for military control of Australia has been underway for over a decade, supported by both the Coalition and Labor. Michelle Fahy and Elizabeth Minter explain the Force Posture Agreement.

The Albanese government has not explained the full picture in its rejection of Paul Keating’s concerns about Australia’s defence policy. The former Labor prime minister said on ABC’s 7:30 last Thursday that AUKUS was likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States: “AUKUS is really about, in American terms, the military control of Australia.”

The next morning deputy prime minister Richard Marles claimed Keating’s remarks were “not a fair characterisation” and that Keating’s remarks were not news.

Unmentioned by either Keating or Marles was that America’s bid for military control of Australia has been under way for more than a decade, with the enthusiastic support of both Coalition and Labor governments. As we write this, the US is spending $630 million as part of an extensive militarisation of the Australian Top End to suit its purposes.

Furthermore, five days ago, after the annual Ausmin (Australia-US Ministerial Consultations) talks, it was announced that the US was planning more frequent deployments to Australia of long-range B-52 bombers, which can carry nuclear weapons. 

When asked last year whether Australia would allow US aircraft operating out of Tindal air base in the Northern Territory to carry nuclear weapons, the response of Foreign Minister Penny Wong was simply: “We understand and respect the longstanding US policy of neither confirming or denying.”

Compare that stance with that of Malcolm Fraser’s government. As John Menadue explained in a recent podcast “The Americanisation of our public policy, media and national interest”, then prime minister Fraser stood up in Parliament and insisted that no US aircraft or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.

As Menadue said: “This is our territory, this is our sovereignty, [yet today] we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.”

Unimpeded access for the US

A critical piece of evidence regarding Australia’s sellout is the little-known Force Posture Agreement (FPA) with the United States, which the Abbott Coalition government signed in 2014, building on agreements made with the US by the Gillard Labor government. Her government allowed up to 2,500 US marines to be stationed on a permanent rotation in Darwin, and increased the number of military aircraft that could fly in and out of the Top End and use Australia’s outback bombing ranges. 

The FPA provides the legal basis for the extensive militarisation of Australia by the US. In short, it permits the US to prepare for, launch and control its own military operations from Australian territory: “United States Forces and United States Contractors shall have unimpeded access to and use of Agreed Facilities and Areas for activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement.”

Defence Minister Marles has been effusive in his support for the force posture agreement and the control the US has been given over Australian soil. 

Just last week, he announced that: “American force posture now in Australia involves every domain: land, sea, air, cyber and space.” Yet the longstanding Outer Space Treaty, which each AUKUS ally has ratified, reserves outer space for purely peaceful purposes. 

Two months after Labor won office in May 2022, Marles was in Washington DC announcing that Labor would “continue the ambitious trajectory of its force posture cooperation” with the US. 

He added that Australia’s military engagement with the US military would “move beyond interoperability to interchangeability” and Australia would “ensure we have all the enablers in place to operate seamlessly together, at speed”.

Latest AUKUS agreement offers ‘escape’ route for US, UK

While the FPA strongly supports America’s ability to wage war against China, politicians have not explained its significance to the Australian public. Moreover, public consultation on the FPA was virtually non-existent. The Northern Territory government was consulted, while other state and territory governments merely received advice about it.

Defence Minister Marles speaks of the “appreciation for the contribution that America is making to the stability and the peace of the Indo-Pacific region by its presence in Australia”, but numerous critics, including Sam Roggeveen, the director of the Lowy Institute’s international security program and a former Australian intelligence analyst, warn of the risks of bringing “US combat forces, and its military strategy to fight China, on to our shores”.

The FPA allows the following and much more:

• unimpeded access to our airfields and airport facilities for US combat aircraft and bombers;
• unimpeded access to our seaports for US naval vessels, including US nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia;
• the construction of a US Air Force mission planning, intelligence and operations centre in Darwin as part of $630 million in American spending across the Top End over the next two years;
• the establishment, under US military control, of several storage facilities for aircraft fuel, spare parts and munitions, including 11 giant jet fuel storage tanks near Darwin’s main port, which “will allow the US to run large-scale exercises and operations from Northern Australia”.

AUKUS, in conjunction with the FPA, ensures that Australia’s navy, in particular, will be tightly integrated with the US navy for the purpose of fighting China, and that the two navies can operate as one from Australian ports and waters.

Handcuffed to the US

Australia’s high-tech major weapons systems also make us more reliant than ever on the United States. As respected veteran journalist Brian Toohey reported in 2020, “The US … denies Australia access to the computer source code essential to operate key electronic components in its ships, planes, missiles, sensors and so on.” 

This includes the F-35 fighter jets, which both Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Marles have noted this year form the largest proportion of the Australian Air Force’s fast jet capacity.

The significant erosion of Australian sovereignty did not start with AUKUS. Australians were warned as far back as 2001 of the high costs of our dependence on the US by a Parliamentary Library research paper that stated: “It is almost literally true that Australia cannot go to war without the consent and support of the US.”

The paper also noted that the Australian Defence Force is critically dependent on US supply and support for the conduct of all its operations except those at the lowest level and of the shortest duration.

It is more than dependency though? Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles boasts that “American force posture now in Australia involves every domain: land, sea, air, cyber and space” yet the Albanese government denies that Australia is turning into the 51st state of America.

Studious Ambassador Rudd and his “big careful” AUKUS shipyard cost study

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Against stiff opposition from the Big Business lobby, Parliament is due to vote on the Albanese Government’s multinational tax avoidance reforms this month. Mark Zinsak and Jason Ward deliver their verdict on the reforms.

The Albanese Government came to office promising an ambitious reform agenda to address multinational corporate tax avoidance. It has made progress on some measures but has faced stiff resistance from multinational corporations, tax advisers, lobbyists and political allies. 

An essential reform currently before the Parliament is legislation requiring large multinational corporations to publicly report revenue, profits, taxes paid, number of employees, and assets broken down by the locations where it has a presence for a list of specified tax havens.

Stakeholders will be able to determine if genuine business operations align with where profits are booked and taxes are paid, or not. Corporations that have created artificial structures to dodge paying taxes in Australia – and elsewhere – will be exposed. The government’s legislation will lead the world in increasing multinational corporations’ tax transparency and pave the way for further reforms. 

Country by Country a win

Multinational corporations will be encouraged to report financial data for every country with operations, which is essential for full transparency. For now, mandatory public reporting for all jurisdictions remains an unfinished reform. Large multinational enterprises already report similar information on a confidential basis to OECD tax authorities, including the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), but is not available to civil society, investors, academics, other government bodies or most global tax authorities.

Requiring this information to be made public would greatly increase tax transparency, and public exposure would be a strong incentive for multinational corporations to stop shifting profits offshore. Increased transparency would expose the current scale of profit shifting and inform debates on further reforms needed to close loopholes and increase funding for essential public services.

Punishment by partiality: Lendlease white-collars stick to the right side of the law no matter what

The Government had planned for a more ambitious piece of legislation that would have required the large multinational corporations to publicly report financial details by every jurisdiction in which it has a presence, not just those on a specified list. Yet they were forced to walk back from that ambitious agenda due to threats from other governments that Australia would be punished by being cut off from the OECD system of confidential country-by-country reporting by multinational corporations.

The result would have been a loss of vital intelligence that assists the ATO in addressing tax avoidance by multinational corporations. Thus, the current bill before the Parliament is as far as the Australian Government could go in the current international environment. 

Beneficial ownership – backflip with pike

An area where the current government has failed to make any meaningful progress is a public register of the ultimate owners of corporations, known as “ultimate beneficial owners”.

The Panama Papers have provided a small window into the world in which shell companies with concealed ownership are used as vehicles to facilitate a range of serious human rights violations, from human trafficking, money laundering, financing terrorism, commercial online child sexual abuse, illicit arms trading, corruption and bribery.

In Australia, it has been possible to register a company with ASIC and conceal the real owners of the corporation. Research from 2012 found that Australian businesses that set up companies for others were near the top of such businesses globally in terms of being willing to set up an untraceable shell company even when there was a significant risk the company in question would be used for illicit purposes.

A 2022 study by the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative of the World Bank and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime reported a UK business that established companies for international clients provided a front nominee for a UK shell company complete with a pre-signed but undated letter of resignation and a power of attorney agreement.

Thus, if necessary, the beneficial owner could fire the nominee retroactively. The nominee committed not to pursue legal action against the nominee for damages caused to the company or its assets. Beyond these arrangements, the nominee had no relationship with the beneficial owner or role in running the business. The UK business explained the role of the nominee was only to prevent the beneficial owner from having to reveal their control of the company.  

The Albanese Government ran a consultation on public disclosure of beneficial owners at the end of 2022. However, nothing further has been heard of progressing the initiative. The model put forward was extremely weak. It would require corporations to voluntarily disclose larger beneficial owners, which is unlikely to be complied with when the ultimate beneficial owner is a known criminal or corrupt politician. The government promised the model would be the first step and would be improved over time.

Subs disclosures good

The Australian Government has also legislated changes requiring all public companies in Australia to disclose all subsidiaries and the jurisdictions in which they are incorporated. This is a significant increase in transparency for Australian corporations as the previous requirement was to only disclose ‘material’ subsidiaries which is highly subjective. As new annual reports are published, it will be revealing to see some corporations report previously undisclosed subsidiaries.

The Albanese Government also promised to restrain the use of royalty payments by multinational enterprises, a very common form of profit shifting, but met with stiff international objections. The commitment has been abandoned, under the argument it will be addressed for larger corporations by the introduction for a minimum global tax rate of 15%.

Royalties still rorted

The recent loss of the Pepsi case by ATO, on appeal, at the Full Federal Court, makes a clear case for the need of reform of misuse of royalty payments. Multinational corporations consistently abuse royalty payments to shift profits offshore and avoid income tax in Australia and globally. It remains to be seen if the new global minimum tax rate will adequately address abuse of royalty payments.

In summary, while some progress has been made in Australia and globally to tackle tax dodging, it remains an enormous problem that disadvantages responsible businesses and undermines faith in public institutions.

In 2022, it was estimated that multinationals shifted US$1 trillion into tax havens, equivalent to over one-third of all profits booked outside headquarters countries. The impacts of multinational tax dodging are felt everywhere but especially devastating in the global south, with less enforcement capacity and greater reliance on corporate tax revenues.

We look forward to the Australian Government implementing all its pre-election promises to rein in multinational corporate tax avoidance and other corporate crimes.

Australia set to take on the cockroaches of multinational tax chicanery

This post was originally published on Michael West.

While Australian taxpayers are pouring $4.7B into the US submarine industrial base as part of the AUKUS deal, there is scant detail on how the money is spent. But Kevin Rudd has studied it closely. Or has he? Rex Patrick asks.

When Australia’s Ambassador to the United States and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did a radio interview about AUKUS with Hugh Hewitt, MWM thought it prudent to carefully analyse what was being said.

Australians have gifted $4.7B to the US to prop up and expand the US submarine industrial base so that the US might – and it’s a big might – be able increase their submarine build rate from 1.4 subs per year to 2.3.

The 2.3 is the magic number to ensure the US Navy is comfortable enough to transfer its much-needed submarines to the Royal Australian Navy while maintaining its own fleet capacity.

But to my knowledge, and I pay close attention to these things, there are no details in the public domain on how the Australian money will be spent; just lots of articles in New England papers saying their submarine shipyards are on a big recruitment drive. There are also press releases from local US politicians saying how happy they are with the inflow of cash into their shipyards.

So I was curious to hear Ambassador Rudd say:

“But when I look at the numbers – and we’ve done a big careful study of this, because we’re spending our money on this – there is already evidence of a full set of apprenticeship schools now emerging in Newport News, and in Groton, Connecticut. We see the increased throughput of boats going from only one per year to an average of 1.3, 1.4 per year.

So we have some confidence that, when you throw in the additional American investment and our [USD] $3 billion as Australia into the base, that by the time you get to 2028, 2029, we should be back in the territory producing two boats a year and perhaps even earlier.”

A “big careful study”. Wow! I had to get my hands on that. So, I put pen to paper and made an FOI request in the following terms: “I seek access to the study of the United States submarine industrial base referred to by Ambassador Kevin Rudd in his interview with Hugh Hewitt Show on the Salem Radio Network on 3 April 2024.”

After the usual wait, I received a formal decision, which left me stunned.

Not quite that big and careful

It turns out there is no study. Now, that’s not to say that Kevin was telling a porky pie. After all, he’s a former diplomat, twice Prime Minister and now ambassador. I’d attempt to explain how he didn’t lie, but it’s probably best if I just let the Washington Embassy do that.

Australian US Embassy FOI response.

So, there’s no consolidated, comprehensive study that underpins the commitment of billions of taxpayers’ dollars to the US shipyard industry.

I don’t doubt that our embassy in Washington and departments back in Canberra have examined various aspects of this, but the absence of a core analysis pulling together all aspects is quite remarkable.

Given that the initial political decisions on AUKUS, by both the Coalition and Labor, were taken without the benefit of such an assessment, it does look like there’s been a disinclination since then to look too closely at the deeply troubled state of US submarine construction projects.

I guess this all ties in with the revelation, extracted by Senator David Shoebridge at the last Senate Estimates, that there’s no clawback of our $4.7B if the US doesn’t deliver.

Tom and Demi

Defence’s management of AUKUS reminds me of that scene from the movie ‘A Few Good Men’ in which Demi Moore looks at Tom Cruise and offers caution: “My feeling is that if this [project] is handled in the same fast-food, slick-ass ‘Persian Bazaar’ manner with which you seem to handle everything else, something’s gonna get missed.”

The quote is spot on for our Defence Department and AUKUS, except that in ‘A Few Good Men’, Tom Cruise goes on to win his case. I’m pretty sure, on AUKUS, that’s not going to be the case for Australia.

Join our Team! AUKUS foreign expenditure sinkhole blows out to $12B … already

This post was originally published on Michael West.

The NSW casino regulator has beaten the casinos into submission, including mandatory cashless gambling measures. Meanwhile, the pokies clubs enjoy the freedom from the same regulations, making them a haven for money laundering. Whistleblower Troy Stolz with the story.

The legislation for pokie venues and the reporting requirements for the regulator AUSTRAC have been around since 2006, when the AML/CTF Act was passed. However, while cash is still legal tender in these clubs, the current regulation remains ineffective.

Going back to 2011, AUSTRAC identified the vulnerability of the gambling sector, where money laundering is concerned, stating that “Money laundering cases in the gaming sector generally involve cash proceeds from drug trafficking and fraud committed by domestic and international organised crime groups.”

To address this, the NSW Government established the NSW Independent Casino Commission as a result of multiple inquiries into the casinos. The casinos are now forced to mandate cashless gambling as well as having strict reporting requirements imposed, reducing their attractiveness as channels for money laundering significantly.

Not so for the pokie clubs.

Action from ALP on pokies, gambling, more long-shot than sure bet

NSW Crime Commission recommendations

According to the NSW Crime Commission, “criminals are funnelling billions of dollars of “dirty” cash through poker machines in pubs and clubs every year in NSW, but there are no effective controls or data collection to identify or prosecute those involved.”

Approximately $95 billion in cash flows through poker machines in pubs and clubs in NSW each year, making this the gambling capital of Australia.

In October 2022, the NSW Crime Commission delivered  the ‘Project Islington report‘, with a number of recommendations to address the issues known about for years.

The recommendations included the introduction of a mandatory cashless gaming card and enhanced data collection. According to Commissioner Michael Barnes, “poker machines offered criminals one of the last remaining safe havens where cash from criminal enterprises could be “cleaned” or gambled with virtual impunity. “At the moment, serious offenders can enter NSW pubs and clubs, sit down next to patrons in gaming rooms,

and openly feed large sums of cash from their crimes into poker machines with no real fear of detection.

NSW Crime Commission recommendations

So far, none of the recommendations have been acted upon by the NSW Government.

Instead, Premier Chris Minns established an Independent Panel on Gaming Reform. The Panel will oversee a cashless gaming trial on electronic gaming machines in a range of venues across NSW. The Panel has been operating in secret until it releases its report in November this year.

When it comes to compliance, enforcement and regulation, the special treatment of pubs and clubs by the NSW Premier is what NSW voters should be questioning. It is worth pointing out that thanks to pokies taxes, which are in the billions, the state government can reasonably be described as an accomplice of the predatory club casinos.

Big money, even bigger harm

According to the state budget, NSW will collect $3,466B in gambling tax this year. $2.474B of that is from club and pub pokies.

At the end of 2023, NSW had 87,545 poker machines in pubs and clubs, 895 more machines than at the end of 2022, despite a commitment from the NSW government to reduce the number of poker machines in the state.

According to Wesley Mission CEO Reverend Stu Cameron, the people of NSW lost $8.129B to poker machines in 2023, an increase of $29m on 2022 and

the equivalent of $1,000 for every adult and child in the state.

There are glimmers of hope, however, and Reverend Cameron says NSW has already seen a positive impact from reforms introduced by the NSW government in 2023, and the revenue from Clubs appears to be plateauing.

However, “we wait for the outcome of the current pre-implementation testing of cashless gambling in NSW; there are a range of reforms the government can introduce this year that will have an immediate impact on reducing harm.”

Let night harm

He also highlights the particular dangers of late-night gambling, “The government’s own research shows the increased danger of harm occurring to people gambling after midnight. We urge the government to act now on powering down poker machines between midnight and 10 am.”

This was backed up by the NSW Liquor and Gaming Authority in a study released in May 2023, stating that “The Impact of Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) Late Night Play on EGM Player Behaviours study found that people with gambling problems represent the majority of late-night poker machine players, with almost two-thirds of people playing poker machines between 2 am and 8 am experiencing significant negative consequences.”

Vibrancy Reforms make a more vibrant pokies scene

Meanwhile, the Minns government has passed the Vibrancy Reform bill, which came into effect on July 1. The bill is set to improve the regulatory landscape for night-time economy operators. Welcomed by ClubNSW, the pokie clubs lobby group, it makes it easier for clubs to get approval to operate at all hours.

This has already led to later trading for pokie venues due to special events such as the Olympics overseas and by extending trading hours for pokie venues that have live music, meaning pokie venues are rewarded by having their pokies switched on for additional hours.

So the NSW Government, gambling minister David Harris and ‘Premier PokieMinns’ are now 14 months on from their own report stating “late night gambling is bad” on the premise of “bringing back live entertainment”, extending the pokie hours!

An earlier version of this article published on whistleblowers’ website thepublicinterest.com.

Gambling lobby’s influence in politics | The West Report

This post was originally published on Michael West.

In the wake of a scathing report into Child Protection by the NSW Auditor-General, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has consciously delayed well into next year the release of crucial child protection oversight documents. Rex Patrick reports on a government tribunal serving its masters.

I can comfortably say that I’m one of, if not the most, experienced Freedom of Information litigants in the country. I’ve had matters in the Federal Court (including the Full Court), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the South Australian and NSW Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal and with various Information Commissioners around the country.

I mostly win FOI cases, but not always. I react to the losses with quiet reflection, or an appeal. So, this article of criticism of NCAT is a little out of the ordinary, but justified.

Put it in the post please

My first strange experience with NCAT was when I tried to make an application for the review of a GIPA decision (the NSW equivalent of an FOI). Like I do in all other jurisdictions, I emailed my application to NCAT.

The response I got from the Registry was one of, sorry, we don’t accept applications or submissions, via email.

I was told to package my documents up and send them via Australia Post. It was like something straight out of the 1980s – and certainly a first deterrent to anyone under 50 in NSW that wants to challenge a Government decision.

Get a lawyer, really?

The next strange experience I had was when NCAT refused to let me represent (free of charge) ‘Sally’, a whistleblower who was then forced out of NSW Health System. 

Sally suffered with mental health issues following a complaint she made about corruption in the senior echelons of NSW Health. She FOI’ed the report generated in response to the her complaint and was refused access to it. She’d gone to NCAT to have the refusal independently reviewed and found herself up against a seasoned barrister representing NSW Health.

She asked me for help. I said yes. NCAT said no. They weren’t about to let me, a non-lawyer assist her. Principal Member Aaron Suthers, clearly oblivious to what someone has to pay have a lawyer to represent them in a complex FOI matter, suggested Sally hiring a lawyer was her best course of action.

Lawyers’ Picnic: NCAT fails to protect whistleblower in case against NSW Health

Sally withdrew her application. A later FOI showed that NSW Health’s costs for its legal team, paid for by the taxpayer, was $47,509.

(Source: FOI) Money paid to Clayton Ute to Resist Sally’s FOI

Smelling a rat

As a former senator I’m experienced at smelling a government rat. 

Hearing that NSW child protection was in total disarray, on May 20 this year I made a request for the Budget Estimates brief that had been used by the NSW Department of Justice and Community (DCJ) Deputy Secretary Simone Czech when she appeared before a NSW Legislative Council budget estimate committee in March. At the national level, I’ve successfully FOIed Senate Estimates briefs many times.

Just over two weeks later the NSW Auditor-General handed down a scathing report into the State’s Child Protection System. He found: 

“The NSW child protection system is inefficient, ineffective, and unsustainable. Since 2018–2019 there have been increasing child protection reports, escalating out of home care costs, insufficient placement options for children with complex needs, and limited services or support for children and families engaged in the child protection system. Despite numerous reviews into these issues, DCJ has failed to make the necessary changes to ensure its child protection service model meets the needs of children and families.”

Covering the cover-up

DCJ then responded to my FOI suggesting I couldn’t have the Estimates Brief because it’s a Cabinet Document (really, estimates briefs are sent to Cabinet?) and a document subject to Parliamentary privilege.

I was ready for the refusal. The document’s contents are no doubt ‘red hot’ and one they weren’t just going to hand them over.

With my application to NCAT for a review I included a detailed and forceful submission. That immediately caused DCJ to engage counsel and for the Premier’s Department to intervene in the proceedings. The NSW Information and Privacy Commissioner intervened as well, presumably to act as amicus curiae (a friend of the Tribunal).

Exemption farming

DCJ, the beneficiary of any delay in the release of the document, asked for the Cabinet exemption claim to be dealt with first, then the Parliamentary privilege issue to be dealt with at a later date.

I strongly objected, pointing out to the Tribunal that GIPA (FOI) primary purpose is to advance responsible government – where citizens get to have a say and to scrutinise and criticise the NSW Government – and that can’t be done with stale information. It’s quite normal for tribunals to deal with multiple exemptions at a time.

Despite my pleadings, Principal Member Kay Ransome acquiesced to the government’s request.

“I’m disappointed Principal Member”, I said. “The effect of this will mean this controversial documents will not see light of day until well into next year. The State thanks you”.

Refusal to enforce its orders

To wrap up my experience to date, there’s another matter before NCAT where, on no less than four separate occasions, the DCJ has failed to comply with NCAT’s orders to make a decision. But the Tribunal has just ignored the contempt … and the matter has gone on and on and on, unresolved.

When I raised a contempt application I was confronted with NCAT Deputy President, acting Judge Nancy Hennessy, who expressed doubt as to whether the Tribunal can even hold a Government Department in contempt and indicated the application I had made could result in an adverse cost order – I formally ask the Tribunal to enforce its orders against the Government and the prospect of me having to pay for the offender’s lawyers was raised.

What a remarkable state of affairs. I formally ask the Tribunal to enforce its orders against the Government and the prospect of costs gets raised.  

One would expect a recalcitrant agency to get a good thrashing, but not even a wet lettuce leaf is produced and the applicant who had the temerity to suggest that bureaucrats comply with the law is confronted at the outset with the risk of heavy financial cost. 

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Olympic-sized swimming pools and in-house baristas at private schools will continue to be financed by public subsidies after the Labor Government said a flat-no this week to calls to remove tax breaks on building funds. Morgan Harrington with this perspective.

Private school In 1962, St. Brigid’s Primary School in Goulburn needed a new toilet block. The school was overcrowded, with 84 students in a single kindergarten classroom.

Like all non-government schools at the time, it didn’t receive any public funding. It couldn’t afford the cost of building the toilets, which it needed to meet NSW Government heath requirements, so it shut, along with five other Catholic schools in the area. 

The 2,000 students were forced into a public school system with space for 640.

Although the “Goulburn Schools Strike,” as it came to be known, was not immediately successful, the election of the Menzie’s Coalition government in 1963 saw the Commonwealth begin to provide financial aid to non-government schools. 

A lot has changed since then.

“The recommendations to withdraw the Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status of building funds & for religious & ethics education in government schools is a direct attack on school & faith communities” https://t.co/8MfXGvYl4p

— Daniel Ang (@DanielAngRC) July 18, 2024

In the five years to 2022, private schools in NSW spent an estimated $1.5 billion on capital projects. Building funds, which parents are encouraged to donate to, are given the tax deductible status by the Commonwealth.

But, in a report released last week, The Australian Productivity Commission has called for these building funds to be stripped of their tax deductible status because there is a “material risk that donors could convert a tax‑deductible donation into private benefits.” 

The response from the Albanese Government has been swift and unequivocal. Andrew Leigh, the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, has said that the proposed changes “are not being considered.” 

Despite the commentary, the proposal to remove the tax-deductible status of private school building funds is not ‘radical’. The expanding gap between our public and private schools epitomises Australia’s increasing inequality.

The solution is simple: the billion dollars in tax revenue foregone to private schools through their tax-deductible building funds could be redirected to improving schools that need it the most. How else will we ensure that all young Australians get a fair go?

…………….

Editor: The case to justify tax breaks for private school building is not a strong one. Here, Morgan Harrington and Alexia Adhikari reveal some of the more blatant vanity projects being subsidised by the public.

Private schools, public subsidies: with $50k fees per child per year, how can tax breaks be justified?

Over the nine years of Coalition government public funding was skewed towards the private school system to the relative disadvantage of public schools. This has given rise to an outcry over the injustice of cross subsidies. Although, here we break down how the system actually works – on a per student funding basis, which benefits new and smaller private schools and takes the burden off the public for school funding.

That said, the DGR subsidies to the wealthy private schools remains hard to justify, as even many advocates of the independent school system privately admit.

Cranbrook and the private school “arms race”. How far is elite school funding out of whack?

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Olympic-sized swimming pools and in-house baristas at private schools will continue to be financed by public subsidies after the Labor Government said a flat-no this week to calls to remove tax breaks on building funds. Morgan Harrington with this perspective.

Private school In 1962, St. Brigid’s Primary School in Goulburn needed a new toilet block. The school was overcrowded, with 84 students in a single kindergarten classroom.

Like all non-government schools at the time, it didn’t receive any public funding. It couldn’t afford the cost of building the toilets, which it needed to meet NSW Government heath requirements, so it shut, along with five other Catholic schools in the area. 

The 2,000 students were forced into a public school system with space for 640.

Although the “Goulburn Schools Strike,” as it came to be known, was not immediately successful, the election of the Menzie’s Coalition government in 1963 saw the Commonwealth begin to provide financial aid to non-government schools. 

A lot has changed since then.

“The recommendations to withdraw the Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status of building funds & for religious & ethics education in government schools is a direct attack on school & faith communities” https://t.co/8MfXGvYl4p

— Daniel Ang (@DanielAngRC) July 18, 2024

In the five years to 2022, private schools in NSW spent an estimated $1.5 billion on capital projects. Building funds, which parents are encouraged to donate to, are given the tax deductible status by the Commonwealth.

But, in a report released last week, The Australian Productivity Commission has called for these building funds to be stripped of their tax deductible status because there is a “material risk that donors could convert a tax‑deductible donation into private benefits.” 

The response from the Albanese Government has been swift and unequivocal. Andrew Leigh, the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, has said that the proposed changes “are not being considered.” 

Despite the commentary, the proposal to remove the tax-deductible status of private school building funds is not ‘radical’. The expanding gap between our public and private schools epitomises Australia’s increasing inequality.

The solution is simple: the billion dollars in tax revenue foregone to private schools through their tax-deductible building funds could be redirected to improving schools that need it the most. How else will we ensure that all young Australians get a fair go?

…………….

Editor: The case to justify tax breaks for private school building is not a strong one. Here, Morgan Harrington and Alexia Adhikari reveal some of the more blatant vanity projects being subsidised by the public.

Private schools, public subsidies: with $50k fees per child per year, how can tax breaks be justified?

Over the nine years of Coalition government public funding was skewed towards the private school system to the relative disadvantage of public schools. This has given rise to an outcry over the injustice of cross subsidies. Although, here we break down how the system actually works – on a per student funding basis, which benefits new and smaller private schools and takes the burden off the public for school funding.

That said, the DGR subsidies to the wealthy private schools remains hard to justify, as even many advocates of the independent school system privately admit.

Cranbrook and the private school “arms race”. How far is elite school funding out of whack?

This post was originally published on Michael West.

The weapons company whose drones killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom in Gaza has been washing taxpayers’ money into Israel by cheap loans and large dividend payments, on top of its related party payments for weapons contractors. Michael West reports.

Australia is effectively financing the genocide of Palestinians and the slaughter of foreign aid workers with public money.

MWM has analysed the past four years of financial statements for Elbit Systems of Australia Pty Ltd. This company is directly owned by Elbit Systems Ltd in Israel; it is the country’s largest weapons maker. Its drones were deployed in the precision missile strikes on the World Kitchen Central aid convoy in Gaza which killed 7 aid workers including Australian Zomi Frankcom.

Among the findings:

• Elbit’s Australian company board is stacked with Israeli Elbit executives
• Elbit Australia has paid almost $17 million in dividends to its Israel parent company over the past two years ($6.9m in 2023 and $10m in 2022).
• $1.5m was given to Elbit Australia last year in government grants ($1.3m in the year before)
• Last year, Elbit Australia made a loan of $3.5m to its parent company or a company controlled by its parent at interest rates of 4.77%. Home loan mortgages average more than 6% and business loans at least twice that.

These revelations come at a time when the ‘Binskin Inquiry’ report into the death of Zomi Frankcom is about to be made partially public. As the 100 day mark since the killing of Frankcom by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) passed last week, a story was leaked to Guardian Australia which indicated that only part of the Binskin findings about “the incident” would be made public.

In another leak today to Rupert Murdoch’s pro-Israel The Australian, it was made clear that no fault would be laid at the feet of Israel for what was a ‘mistake’ in the fog of war.

This despite clear evidence of three separate missile attacks on a convoy of World Kitchen Central aid vehicles which were clearly marked.

The financial picture of Australia’s military and financial support for the regime of Benjamin Netanyahu is even bleaker when you consider that the government gave Elbit a $917m weapons contract earlier this year; and our sovereign wealth fund under Peter Costello, the Future Fund has become an investor in Elbit Systems.

Future Fund ducks for cover over war crimes investment in Elbit

The board of Elbit Systems Australia comprises Acting Chair Kym Osley who is ex-Air Force, Israeli Boaz Cohen the Senior Vice President Land Systems for Elbit Systems, Haim Delmare an Israeli 20 year veteran executive of parent group Elbit veteran, Joseph Gaspar the chief financial officer of parent Elbit Systems, Dr Karen Stanton the chair and defence industry advocate, Jaimie Hatcher – formerly of Defence now defence industry, and company director Roger Powell.

For a multinational company with revenues of $23m last year, down from $55m (they are likely to rise sharply this year since the Gaza campaign began last October) the dividends to the parent group in Israel are high – $6.9m last year and $10m in 2022.

After “marketing, innovation and bids proposals” expenses of $3.7m last year and general admin expenses of $2.7m and staff costs, they managed to eke out a profit of just 19k. So tax paid is negligible. It was $666k the year prior. The cashflow statement shows a $1.3m tax credit last year.

Elbit loan. Financial report 2023

And government grants?

What is particularly unusual however are the government grants and the related party loan. Why would Elbit Australia be lending money to its Nasdaq listed parent company in Israel? And why at an interest rate just marginally above the Reserve Bank cash rate at 4.35%?

Related party contract work is in the tens of millions of dollars each year, as is expected with these kind of operations and the company has also been claiming the R&D tax benefit.

Revenue peaked at $93m in 2021Rp contract work 21m in 2021

In the leak to The Australian today about the Binskin Inquiry report, “Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council executive director Colin Rubenstein said he would not be surprised if Air Chief Marshal Binskin’s report confirmed that the IDF had “a robust system of investigating itself”, and that the IDF had “learned from the mistakes made in the air strike to ensure such an incident should never happen again”.

“The IDF is professional and moral, as many high-ranking officers from other Western defence forces have found after working with the IDF,” Dr Rubenstein said. “Tragic accidents do happen in war, regardless of who is fighting, but it is important to thoroughly investigate all the circumstances and take steps to do everything possible to ensure such accidents aren’t repeated, as the IDF’s independent investigation has done.”

McBride, Binskin and the Keystone Cops – culture of cover-ups now Zomi Frankcom investigation

This post was originally published on Michael West.

The Royal Commission has found three veteran deaths by suicide every fortnight, yet Stuart McCarthy says the situation with the Department of Veteran Affairs remains toxic with a ‘lawfare’ campaign against vulnerable veterans and their families.

MWM‘s investigation into corruption allegations aired in a Senate Estimates hearing two weeks ago reveals additional layers of a “toxic” veterans’ affairs bureaucracy, which has defied not one but two Royal Commissions.

At the heart of the controversy lies a long-running campaign of taxpayer-funded ‘lawfare’ against vulnerable military veterans, families and widows, with parallels to the Robodebt scandal, involving a 140 year old law firm whose influence is undermining “urgent” reforms to “not fit for purpose” legislation identified as a contributory factor in veteran suicide. As the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission’s (DVSRC) inquiry draws to a close, the situation is now so toxic the department’s security chief has labelled its critics as “security threats.”

Two weeks ago MWM covered revelations from a Senate Estimates hearing that the head of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) veteran and family counselling service was the subject of “numerous” misconduct and corruption allegations, and in 2020 dismissed a misconduct complaint against herself “on behalf of the Minister.”

The hearing also revealed DVA’s head of security Rodger McNally was referred to the national intelligence watchdog for allegedly waging a “vendetta” against veterans and advocates who used freedom of information (FOI) laws to uncover “toxic” practices that have since been a focus of the DVSRC’s inquiry.

NACC: Veterans’ Affairs boss dismissed misconduct complaint against herself

During the Estimates hearing, Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie also asked DVA Secretary Alison Frame:

“Do you know if there have been any referrals from the Royal Commission to investigative bodies with respect to DVA or any of the contractors that have been used in the past?”

To which Frame replied, “I’m not aware of any.”

Senator @JacquiLambie in FADT Estiimates on 2 July 2024 questioning @DVAAus:Secretary Alison Frame:

Lambie: “Do you know if there have been any referrals from @roycommDVSRC to investigative bodies with respect to DVA or any of the contractors that have been used in the past?”… pic.twitter.com/29TV2Ijess

— Stuart McCarthy (@StuartMcCarthy_) July 6, 2024

In response to a written query, an Australian Federal Police spokesperson told MWM “The AFP has not received any reports from the DVSRC.” However, multiple sources say DVA’s toxic, adversarial culture is largely driven by ‘lawfare’ by the 140 year old law firm Sparke Helmore, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth.

From 2016 to 2019 Sparke Helmore received $9.6 million to engage in lawfare against veterans making claims to DVA, including appeals that often escalate to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The overall DVA process, described as “byzantine”, “archaic” and “not fit for purpose” by the DVSRC and a multitude of previous inquiries, has been identified as a contributory factor in veteran suicide.

An August 2018 letter from then Veterans’ Affairs Minister Darren Chester obtained by MWM says “DVA pays Sparke Helmore on a global basis for its services, and not on a per matter basis.”

MWM can also reveal that during the advocacy campaign to establish the DVSRC, Sparke Helmore lawyers were so deeply embedded in the DVA bureaucracy they were authorised by the DVA Secretary to make determinations about the releasability of departmental documents under the FOI Act.

Veterans treated as ‘security threats’

Several well known veteran advocates who lobbied for the DVSRC’s establishment using documents obtained through FOI are among those identified as “security threats” in a 695-page affidavit from McNally to the AAT, cited by Lambie in the Senate hearing two weeks ago. The affidavit was for an AAT matter in which DVA is seeking exemptions from FOI laws that require the names of senior public officials to be included without redaction when government documents are released.

A @SparkeHelmore lawyer, Molly Campbell, was parachuted into @DVAAus in the lead up to #VeteransRCNow Royal Commission. From 2016 to 2019 Sparke Helmore was paid $9.6 million to take on veterans struggling through a dysfunctional DVA bureaucracy.https://t.co/8GujWA2PRb pic.twitter.com/tfoBCLWKiH

— Stuart McCarthy (@StuartMcCarthy_) September 19, 2021

One of the DVA clients named by McNally as a “security threat” is a veteran with a traumatic brain injury and terminal Parkinson’s Disease.

The day after the Estimates hearing, Veterans’ Affairs Minister Matt Keogh tabled proposed legislative amendments to “simplify and harmonise” veterans’ entitlement laws, in response to the DVSRC’s first “urgent” interim recommendation two years ago. Keogh claims the “legislation has been developed in close collaboration with the defence and veteran community,” but his proposal was panned as a “band-aid bill.” Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans’ Association chair Ian Lindgren told MWM last month he quit Keogh’s “purported consultation process on day one”, because:

“The ‘simplified’ legislation will continue to create the angst, complexity and trauma which contributes to suicidality in the defence and veteran community.”

“Give up and die”

Several sources have told MWM that Sparke Helmore lawyers are among those advising DVA officials on the drafting of Keogh’s Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support Bill. The Bill proposes to retain the most complex and onerous of the current “byzantine” acts, and excise the veterans rehabilitation and compensation system from legal standards and oversight mechanisms applicable to other Commonwealth workplace safety and compensation schemes. Veteran advocates say this is a green light for continued lawfare against vulnerable, seriously ill veterans. One advocate says:

“This is just a continuation of the bureaucratic meat grinder by rich men in suits sucking on the public teat while our mates give up and die.”

In May last year the DVSRC commissioners wrote to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese seeking a 12-month extension to their inquiry “in the hope that we could complete the most thorough inquiry possible … to induce action.” Albanese declined the request three months later. An anonymous spokesperson for Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus told The Guardian three months later that the government was instead “committed to finalising this inquiry promptly so we can save lives and ensure a better future for our defence and veteran communities.”

Shades of Robodebt

But the veterans affairs lawfare controversy actually predates the current Royal Commission, with senior government officials having defied the directions of a previous Royal Commission almost a decade ago. The scandal runs deeper than the dysfunctional legislation, into unlawful conduct and impunity that has parallels with the notorious Robodebt scheme.

In June 2016 DVA Assistant Secretary Neil Bayles was grilled by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, over the department’s use of arbitrary standards of evidence for determining rehabilitation and compensation claims from former defence force personnel who were subjected to sexual abuse. Under the relevant laws, claimants are required to meet the “balance of probabilities” standard of proof, but DVA’s nightmarishly bureaucratic claims procedures impose additional, arbitrary legal tests that the head of that Royal Commission said have no basis in law, including a requirement for “corroborative evidence.”

Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission chair Justice Peter McClellan said to Bayles during the proceedings:

“What you should take back to [the department and government] is advice that a system which is operating on the balance of probabilities but excludes any possibility of succeeding in a claim unless there is corroborative evidence, is not in accordance with the law.”

The Marty Rollins case

Two years after that hearing, and still with no sign of change to DVA’s practices, came an ABC 7.30 Report segment which did finally trigger significant change in the department. Former soldier Martin Rollins, who suffered debilitating spinal injuries in a 1990 training accident, told his story about the decade long campaign of DVA “bureaucratic bastardry” to defeat his claims for economic loss compensation.

The department spent more than $600,000 on legal fees to fight Rollins, then literally deleted the relevant policy without telling him or his lawyer, before finally offering him $127,000 for “defective administration.”

Rollins’ story resulted in a personal apology to Rollins from the DVA Secretary and an apology in Parliament from Senator Marise Payne on behalf of the Veterans’ Affairs Minister. Investigations by the Secretary and her senior legal advisor into Rollins’ mistreatment led to an Australian Public Service Code of Conduct investigation into McNally and verbal acknowledgments from senior DVA officials that the conduct of McNally’s security section was “no doubt a driver of veteran suicidality.”

A DVA “client liaison unit” for managing up to 170 allegedly “unreasonable” clients was closed and its bureaucratic architecture was dismantled. Major internal and external reviews were undertaken, and Rollins was at one point invited by DVA to help implement the recommendations of those reviews.

On rare occasions, injured/disabled #veterans who survive this utter bastardry & fight for effective political advocacy and/or media support, have managed to secure hollow, mealy-mouthed government ‘apologies’ in Parliament, for example this offering from Sen. @MarisePayne. 12/25 pic.twitter.com/1KbUXs5ISQ

— Stuart McCarthy (@StuartMcCarthy_) April 16, 2022

MWM is aware of at least several cases of DVA clients managed by the “client liaison unit” who subsequently died by apparent suicide. In one of these cases, MWM can now reveal that on 27 January 2022, the other DVA official named by Lambie last week wrote to the spouse of a seriously ill veteran, threatening to impose “restrictions on your methods for contacting DVA” as part of a “communications plan.”

This was standard DVA phrasing for individuals whose cases were being diverted to the “client liaison unit,” using the tone of a headmistress threatening a primary school student with detention for swearing in the playground. The veteran died four months ago. MWM understands that the state coroner is yet to determine a cause of death. Documents obtained by MWM also show that Sparke Helmore is representing the Commonwealth in an appeal to the AAT by the deceased veteran’s widow.

The department has not responded to our detailed queries regarding the involvement of McNally or the other senior DVA official in this or similar cases involving the client liaison unit.

Two months after Rollins’ story aired in 2018 and as the public lobbying campaign towards the DVSRC gained public support, former military lawyer and prominent veterans’ advocate Glenn Kolomeitz told 2GB’s Ben Fordham after attending a round table meeting with senior DVA officials:

“We’ve resolved a whole bunch of the big-ticket issues and I walked away from there really confident that DVA is getting on with the job.”

But eight years on from Bayles’ appearance at the Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission and two months before the end of the current DVSRC, those initially promising reform efforts seem to have stalled or gone into reverse.

Blatant cronyism

The evidence standards in the department’s policy guidelines still haven’t been corrected. A six-year, billion-dollar PWC/DVA window-dressing exercise called “veteran centric reform” rolled out to forestall the DVSRC became a magnet for blatant cronyism and corruption. One of the key objectives of this billion-dollar program was to “improve the department’s ability to support vulnerable clients.”

In reality, many vulnerable veterans and their families appear to have fallen victim to continued corruption.

Having rejected calls to extend the DVSRC, senior Albanese government officials now argue in private that the “band-aid” Bill tabled in Parliament two weeks ago is the best they have to offer because it would be “too expensive” to undertake the kind of fundamental legislative reform actually recommended by the DVSRC and actually required to meet the needs of veterans vulnerable to suicide.

One of Australia’s most successful veteran advocates, Rod Thompson, who has represented hundreds of survivors of defence force abuse over the past 15 years, says the existing Act retained in Keogh’s Bill “is a basket case”, and if the new legislation is passed:

“I think it’s going to get worse, because there will have to be another set of precedents and case law.”

The Brisbane-based former Navy Leading Seaman says he has a 90% success rate in appeals against DVA determinations to the Veterans Review Board – which prohibits representation of veterans by lawyers but typically involves cases prepared for DVA by taxpayer-funded lawyers – and an 85% success rate at the AAT.

He says he still occasionally deals with Sparke Helmore lawyers representing the Commonwealth in AAT matters. His success rate alone poses serious questions about the justice afforded to injured veterans under the department’s “not fit for purpose” system.

More Helmore hell

Several sources have told MWM that since the 2022 change in government and recent senior DVA leadership staff turnover, including the appointment of departmental secretary Alison Frame in January last year, Sparke Helmore has returned to a position of influence in the department. This includes involvement in the “legislative reforms” tabled by Keogh two weeks ago. One source says:

“Exactly the same shit is happening all over again … the fox is back in charge of the hen house. And it’s happening in the middle of a Royal Commission.”

With an impotent national corruption watchdog, a bipartisan commitment to maintaining the status quo despite clear directions from two Royal Commissions in less than a decade, and mounting evidence of systemic corruption in this dysfunctional portfolio, the defence and veterans community is left wondering what it will take short of criminal corruption charges to generate the political will for real change rather than band-aids.

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Richard Marles and Penny Wong deny Australia is aiding Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinians but they are dissembling over military exports with Orwellian language. Michelle Fahy for Declassified Australia reports on ‘non-lethal’ weapons parts.

‘Lethal’ is the first word Lockheed Martin uses to describe and market its F-35 fighter jet as “the most lethal fighter jet in the world”. In March this year, the F-35A version was also operationally certified to carry a nuclear bomb – the first fighter jet or bomber granted nuclear-capable status since the 1990s.

Lockheed Martin has acknowledged that “every F-35 built contains some Australian parts and components”, a number of which Australia is also the sole source. The F-35 would not operate without all its parts and components.

According  to the UN: “The scale of human death and destruction wrought by Israel’s bombing of Gaza (since October 7) … has been immense.”

Client State: Australia the “51st state of the US” for deadly weapons production

Government in damage control

Up until a few weeks ago, ministers were still trying to maintain the line that “Australia is not sending weapons to Israel and has not done so for the past five years.”

On ABC radio in early June, Defence Minister Richard Marles said: “What the Greens are alleging is that somehow we are supplying Israel with weapons which are being used in the conflict in Gaza. That is absolutely false, and … a total lie.”

But after nine months of denying weapons are going to Israel, senior ministers are in damage control after a Defence Department official admitted for the first time since the Hamas attack on Israel that there are

active export permits relating to Israel that cover the transfer of parts and components.

Senior ministers have now introduced an Orwellian phrase—“non-lethal parts”—to defend the continued export of key parts and components into the F-35 supply chain. The government was forced to change its language following evidence given by a Department official in a recent Senate Estimates hearing.

Hugh Jeffrey, a deputy secretary, told Estimates that “around 66” defence export permits “that relate to Israel” remain active. A proportion of them related to Australian Defence Force capability, he said.

“The remaining elements of those permits range from parts and components to technology exports,” Jeffrey said. The Defence Department had finally admitted that it has active permits relating to Israel that cover the export of parts and components.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong was forced to concede that Australia was exporting parts into the F-35 global supply chain but then doubled down. She told ABC Insiders on 16 June: “We have F-35s… we are part of 18 nations who are part of that consortia. We are involved in non-lethal parts…”

Five days earlier, Richard Marles had said: “There are a number of what I’d describe as non-lethal parts that are provided to the F-35s.”

‘Non-lethal parts’ disinformation

The UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) makes no mention of the lethality of the individual parts or components that comprise the weapons (“conventional arms”) it covers.

The ‘non-lethal parts’ messaging is also directly at odds with a UN statement issued on 20 June that named multinational arms companies in its call to cease supplying Israel with arms, “even if [the arms transfers] are executed under existing export licenses.”

Under the headline “States and companies must end arms transfers to Israel immediately or risk responsibility for human rights violations”, the statement named 11 multinationals, including Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Rheinmetall and RTX/Raytheon, which all have significant operations in Australia.

The UN statement said, “These companies, by sending weapons, parts, components, and ammunition to Israeli forces,

risk being complicit in serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian laws.

What’s a weapon?

The favoured line of all MPs – that “Australia is not sending weapons to Israel and has not done so for the past five years” – has finally fallen apart. The carefully crafted line contained two elements designed to mislead: ‘weapons’ and ‘to Israel’.

The government is cynically relying on a narrow military definition. The department’s Hugh Jeffrey has said its chosen definition “derived from” definitions in the Arms Trade Treaty. “Under the UN definition, weapons are defined as whole systems, like armoured vehicles, tanks and combat helicopters,” he said.

However, the Arms Trade Treaty does not use the word “weapons” as implied by Jeffrey; it uses the term “conventional arms”. Article 2 of the treaty says that it applies to “all conventional arms within the following categories:”

• Battle tanks
• Armoured combat vehicles
• Large calibre artillery systems
• Combat aircraft
• Attack helicopters
• Warships
• Missiles and missile launchers
• Small arms and light weapons

Article 3 refers to ‘ammunition/munitions’, and Article 4 refers to ‘parts and components’. These military products are also included under the treaty’s prohibitions, meaning their export must cease if they are being used in serious violations of international law.

In all its previous public statements, the Albanese government had ignored Articles 3 and 4.

The Defence Department also continues to insist that parts and components are not weapons.

To Israel or not?

Military exports – including ammunition, munitions, parts and components – do not need to travel directly ‘to Israel’ to be prohibited under the ATT. On the contrary, Governments are required to find out where their weapons will or may end up and then make decisions that comply with the treaty.

Using arms trade lingo, a government must consider and assess the potential ‘end users’ of its military exports.

The Arms Trade Treaty and the Geneva Conventions are clear on human rights responsibilities. Article 6.3 states that a nation-state should not authorise any transfer of conventional arms if it knows at the time that the items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or other war crimes.

Article 7.1 states that the exporting nation must assess the potential for conventional arms to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law or international human rights law.

Article 7.4 adds that this requirement also includes ammunition, munitions, parts and components.

The UN experts also referred to the Geneva Conventions when warning countries that any transfer of weapons or ammunition to Israel that would be used in Gaza was likely to violate international humanitarian law:

“States must accordingly refrain from transferring any weapon or ammunition – or parts for them – if it is expected … that they would be used to violate international law … Such transfers are prohibited even if the exporting State does not intend the arms to be used in violation of the law … as long as there is a clear risk.”

This story an edited version of the story first published by Declassified Australia.

Future Fund invested in Israeli company Elbit Systems – whose bombs are raining on the Palestinians

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Why does Kim Beazley, chair of the $550 million Australian War Memorial upgrade, appear to hide his board roles at multinational weapons companies sponsoring the project? Who else is involved? Elizabeth Minter and Michelle Fahy go digging.

Australian War Memorial Council website makes no mention of chair Kim Beazley’s roles with multinational weapons companies Luerssen and Lockheed Martin and is very coy about another Council member’s full-time role with French weapons multinational Thales, which has just been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

A recent report by the national auditor general into the development of the Australian War Memorial found serious deficiencies. Steps were taken to dodge ministerial oversight; conflicts of interest were not adequately documented and declared; known conflicts were not adequately managed; key personnel did not declare prior employment with tenderers; and there were deficiencies in the quality of advice to the minister.

One draft contract for $1.05 million was split into two contracts with the same supplier, with both contracts being signed on the same day. Another contract under an official order for a maximum value of $319,572 was later varied upwards to $999,999—one dollar under the $1 million threshold required for ministerial approval.

The Australian War Memorial’s purpose is to commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war or on operational service and those who have served our nation in times of conflict. It was designed as a place of quiet reflection and contemplation.

Military Disneyland

However, thanks to long-running sponsorship deals over the years with global weapons manufacturers, including BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Thales, the AWM is being transformed into a military Disneyland, which boastfully celebrates combat triumph with displays of military hardware and exhibitions.

We now honour our dead in a place sponsored by the companies that are so handsomely rewarded financially by the wars that kill our citizens.

In its report, the Auditor-General further noted that an entity’s culture will be determined by the “tone at the top” set by its leadership, noting that the AWM’s Council members and Senior Executive Service officers declare interests annually.

However, the Auditor-General stated that “AWM did not undertake any specific probity planning or review its processes for Council and staff to reflect the increased probity risks arising from the scale and volume of the procurement activities relating to the $498 million development project.”

Kim Beazley’s many roles

Should the public be told, for example, that Labor luminary Kim Beazley, the chair of the War Memorial Council, which is responsible for the conduct and control of the Memorial’s affairs, is an adviser to Lockheed Martin and that he was also on the board of Lockheed Martin Australia for almost two years (2016-2018) in between his roles as ambassador to the US and Governor of WA? Lockheed Martin manufactures the lethal F-35 fighter jet that Israel is using to drop bombs on Gaza.

Beazley’s 349-word profile on the website of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), where he is a distinguished senior fellow, similarly contains no mention of his roles with Luerssen Australian and Lockheed.

ASPI’s mission is to contribute an “independent voice to public discussion” and “bring alternative sources of advice”  to “key strategic and defence policy issues”. Beazley writes regularly for ASPI, including this article on naval shipbuilding earlier this year, but he and ASPI neglected to mention that he is on the board of Luerssen Australia, which has the $3.6 billion contract to build offshore patrol vessels for Australia’s navy.

Why is there no mention of Beazley’s close engagement with these multinational arms companies in his 350-word profile on the AWM website? Beazley’s profile mentions his role as Governor of WA, his dedication to federal politics for nearly 30 years, his ministerial portfolios, his Companion of the Order of Australia honour, his advocacy for Indigenous people and the community, his educational achievements, his US ambassadorial role, his roles in academia, and his distinguished fellowships, all of which indicate a lifetime of public service.

The media release announcing Beazley’s role as Council chair on 2 December 2022 also omitted his Lockheed Martin and Luerssen roles.

Conflicts of interest

Also, why wasn’t the public told for a long time that another member of the War Memorial Council is a Key Account Manager with the French multinational weapons manufacturer Thales?

Daniel Keighran, a Council member for eight years, has been employed for at least five years by Thales, a sponsor (corporate partner) of the War Memorial and one of the top handful of suppliers to the Defence Department in Australia.

Thales was last week referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission after the national auditor-general released yet another excoriating report into procurement by the Defence Department, finding evidence of “unethical conduct”. Thales received a $1.2 billion contract to run two Commonwealth-owned munitions facilities in 2020 despite an assessment that found its bid was “deficient”, “high risk” and did not offer value for money.

Until recently, there was no mention in Keighran’s Council profile of his Thales role, as is evident from a snapshot taken on February 22, 2024, by the Wayback Machine, which takes snapshots of websites over the years.

While the Council has since updated Keighran’s profile, his full-time employment at Thales is still only obliquely referred to as a ‘current association’.

Memorial Rorts: how the Australian War Memorial expansion was rammed through despite public opposition

War Memorial Council

Sitting alongside Keighran and Beazley at War Memorial Council meetings are the chiefs of each military service, who are ultimately responsible for arms procurement. They are Chief of Army Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond; and Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Robert Chipman.

Notwithstanding the deficiencies outlined earlier, the Auditor-General found that the management of the development project had been largely effective. In a media release, the Australian War Memorial welcomed “the positive findings of this report,” which “illustrate the significant achievements, particularly across critical matters involving probity and transparency.”

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Matt Keogh, said the government was concerned by the report and that “an urgent briefing” had been requested from the ANAO on its findings and recommendations,“ and we will discuss these with the Australian War Memorial’s management as a priority.”

Australian War Memorial: from keeper of the flame to hider of shame?

This post was originally published on Michael West.

On the last day of sitting before the winter parliamentary break, the Albanese Government, who’ve had bills delayed and amended, for the first time in the 47th Parliament had a piece of legislation voted down in the Senate. It’s an outcome that does not serve Australians well. Rex Patrick reports.

Comedy in the Senate

Last Thursday in the Senate, Greens’ Senator David Shoebridge rose from his seat and gave an impromptu speech on Defence. Anyone watching might reasonably have thought he was engaging in a moment of comedy, but he wasn’t; the topic was deadly serious.

“It’s hard to know where you end the list of defence procurement disasters which have happened because, whether it’s Labor in government or the Coalition in government, whether it’s Labor in opposition or Coalition in opposition, the usual practice is that the club doesn’t hold Defence to account.“

“The club just signs off on whatever new funding fantasy Defence comes up with and pretends that Defence can achieve it”, he went on to say.

Dumb Ways to Buy: Defence “shambles” unveiled – former submariner and senator Rex Patrick

Zero, zero, zero

Shoebridge then made some blunt observations on submarine procurement.

“Two decades of this nonsense on submarines has given us a $20 billion hole. I’m trying to think how many submarines we got in the last 20 years – oh, zero. We’ve given $5 billion to the French for no subs, $5 billion to the US for no subs, $5 billion to the UK for no subs and $5 billion trying to keep the Collins class going for another ten years under an experimental project. How many new subs have we got? Zero”

He moved on to frigates.

“I think we were meant to get nine frigates for $45 billion. Now it looks like we’re going to get six frigates, and guess what the price tag will be? It’s $45 billion and counting.”

“Let’s be clear: the $45 billion on the Hunter frigates is to date the single largest procurement contract ever signed by the Commonwealth, and it’s a disaster zone. How many Hunter frigates do we have? You’ll be pleased to know we have the same number of Hunter frigates in service as we have new submarines. Zero.”

He finally turned to the Navy’s Offshore Patrol Vessels

“Guess how many offshore patrol vessels are currently in commission after having spent more than $1 billion on the project? The exact same number of offshore patrol vessels are in commission as new subs and new Hunter frigates: zero.”

A recent surface fleet review found that the Offshore Patrol vessel is too big to do patrol boat work and too small to put in any kind of conflict zone. At Estimates last month the Chief of Navy conceded the project was “… not an efficient use of resources …”.

A mess that needs fixing

Defence, by far, has the most public money committed to projects. If you wanted only one agency of government to spend money wisely, it would be Defence.

Money committed to Projects by Agency (Source: Austender)

But they don’t spend it wisely. Defence procurement is an absolute mess.

The starting point for that mess is Admirals, Air Marshalls and Generals with little project and risk management experience making purchasing recommendations to Cabinet ministers with no experience in project and risk management.

Senator Shoebridge rightly pinged the timidity of successive governments, cabinets and ministers when it comes to defence:

“They pretend they’re tough on Defence until somebody strides into the room with a little bit of gold braid on their shoulder and then there’s this obscene subservience from both the Labor party and the coalition: ‘Oh, Sir! Oh, Madam! How much money can we give you? Does it go ‘whoosh’? Will it go ‘bang’ at some point? Oh, that’s great! You can have the money.”

Oversight vacuum

And that leads us to the failed Bill last Thursday.

Defence has little oversight. Whenever they turn up to Senate Estimates or the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Accounts and Auditing, and the subject matter strays into areas of embarrassment, Defence pleads “it’s classified, we can’t talk about it.”

In late May the Government introduced a Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 that would establish a parliamentary committee that would meet in secret (by default) and have the power to inquire into just about any aspect of Defence.

The Committee, as prescribed in the Government’s Bill, was to consist of 13 Senators and MPs; seven Government members and six non-Government members.

The Liberals and Nationals went into a cataclysmic spasm. This would allow the Prime Minister to appoint a cross-bencher or two. OMG!

We have 14 cross benchers in the House (out of 151 MPs – 9%) and 20 cross benchers in the Senate (out of 76 senators – 26%). Having their representation on the Committee is appropriate, particularly given that most Defence projects are so long they extend across parliamentary terms and indeed several changes of government. Both Labor and the Coalition are to blame for the many screw-ups and are hesitant to engage in vigorous scrutinise.

So, Senator Birmingham moved an amendment to restrict the membership to seven government members and six opposition members. That amendment went down, the Government and cross-bench voting against his changes. This put a nail in the Bill’s coffin, ensuring the Coalition would eventually vote against it.

Two-party squeeze

Senator Shoebridge, rightly suspicious of the wording of Labor’s Bill, sought to amend it from seven Government members and six non-Government members (which could easily just mean opposition members) to seven government members, four opposition members and two cross benchers; one from the House and one from the Senate. That option was not supported by Labor or Liberal and was voted down.

That left the original wording of the Bill, without Liberal or cross-bench support.

The Bill went then went down in flames. It was Labor’s first comprehensive legislative fail in this Parliament.

There were some happy winners though; Defence’s bloated and complacent bureaucratic leadership.  For them it’s business as usual; billions of taxpayers’ dollars to splurge with little scrutiny and even less accountability. There were, no doubt, a few bottles of (contractor supplied) champagne popping at Defence central on Russell Hill. They had dodged a bullet.

Politics, as it so often does, got in the way of a good outcome for the Australia public.

This post was originally published on Michael West.

What is the legal position of the estimated 1,000 Australians fighting for the Israel Defense Forces amid allegations of IDF genocide in Gaza and International Court of Justice proceedings? Michael West reports on the progress (or not) of Freedom of Information requests.

What is the legal position of Australians fighting for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) in Gaza amid claims of widespread breaches of international law in a conflict which has taken the lives of 40,000 people, more than half of them women and children? 

As more countries sign up to South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice which alleges Israel’s military campaign in Gaza amounted to genocide, has the Australian government warned the estimated 1000 Australians either actively serving or enlisted as reservists of their risk of prosecution?

In March, it was revealed that the British government received advice from its own lawyers saying Israel had breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public.

Freedom of Information (FOI) requests by MWM correspondent and former senator Rex Patrick asking for government advice on foreign fighters have been stonewalled by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Plenty of information, but sorry

Responses during the processing of the requests show that there is a large volume of information surrounding the issue. Unfortunately, the government is not sharing its advice. On May 24, Patrick received this response from the Department for Foreign Affairs:

“Even if we only provided the relevant parts of the Talking Points relating to your request, they would still comprise an estimated 300 pages. I also estimate the balance of the documents would. comprise a further 300 pages bringing the total number of pages to 600 pages, down from the original 1,300 pages.”

The FOI was rejected on the basis that the documentation was too large. The exchange is published below. Meanwhile, independent legal counsel has found that there is a risk for these foreign fighters. Writing for MWM in October last year, Greg Barns SC found that there was a legal risk.

Israel’s bombardment of Palestinians: is Australia complicit in war crimes?

And three months later as the death toll rose dramatically, writing for John Menadue’s Pearls & Irritations, Greg Barns and Benedict Coyne found Australian citizens were at risk of being prosecuted under Australian law “if they commit, or are complicit in, crimes being perpetrated by the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza.

“Since the commencement of the Gaza war, when the Israeli government issued an order to 360,000 military reservists to engage in the onslaught of Gaza, multiple dual Australian-Israeli citizens returned to Israel to fight in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). This development saw some Australian media outlets appearing to celebrate the fact that Australian citizens were being called up to join the brutal onslaught of the beleaguered population of Gaza.”

Although the IDF does not release official statistics in relation to serving foreign nationals, the Australian Centre for International Justice has reported estimates of up to 1,000 Australians currently serving in the IDF or being active reservists.

“As the Australian Centre for International Justice noted on 22 December 2023 despite the knowledge about Israeli war crimes in this conflict, “it appears that the Australian government has failed to provide any public statements advising of the risks involved particularly in respect of the potential legal consequences and individual criminal liability that could arise from the conduct of Australian nationals participating in the conflict as a member of the IDF.” 

Despite fears that Australian foreign fighters could be held responsible for war crimes, the Australian government has batted off FOI requests from Rex Patrick.

A chronology of stonewalling

On April 5, Patrick made a request to DFAT for

Documents created or received by DFAT since 7 October 2023 that relate to Australian citizens serving in the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).

April 29 – DFAT responded saying:

Searches undertaken by MEB have captured documents consisting of over 1,330 pages. A large proportion of the documents are Talking Points and Senate Estimates Briefs. While these documents only contain a small amount of information relevant to your request, you have stated that ‘Where a record in part contains information relating to the above matter, I seek access to the entirety of the document’.

 May 4 – Patrick suggested a reduction of scope to:

“Correspondence/emails received from the Attorney-General’s office/ADG or the Foreign Ministers Office and ministerial briefs/talking points provided to the Attorney-General’s office/ADG or the Foreign Ministers Office documents created or received by DFAT since 7 October 2023 that relate to Australian citizens serving in the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).

May 7 – DFAT emailed:

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the department) is continuing to process this request. They requested an extension to Monday 27 May.

Patrick reasonably took this to mean that the scope was now manageable.

“I agreed an extension to Friday May 24, noting that Estimates started on Tuesday 28 May. Note that I advised them my deadline was related to Estimates.

May 24 – DFAT wrote to Patrick formally saying that they were refusing to process the request.

After careful consideration including with the relevant departmental areas, I consider that the practical refusal reason still exists. I am therefore notifying you of my decision to refuse your FOI request, in accordance with section 24(1)(b) of the FOI Act.

I have once again considered the advice provided by colleagues in the Middle East Branch who were tasked with undertaking searches using your revised scope, and they documents they have identified. While your revised scope no longer includes … access to the entirety of the document where only part of the document contains information relating to your request, your request still includes all Talking Points. Even if we only provided the relevant parts of the Talking Points relating to your request, they would still comprise an estimated 300 pages. I also estimate the balance of the documents would. comprise a further 300 pages bringing the total number of pages to 600 pages, down from the original 1,300 pages.“They waited 20 days,” says Patrick, and in the meantime asked for an extension – to tell me that the request was still too voluminous.

The information Commissioner guidelines to Agencies state:

Agencies and ministers are only obliged to undertake a request consultation process once for any particular request (s 24AB(9)), but they may choose to continue discussions with an applicant in order to refine a request that is still too large or vague.

Further proof Australia’s FOI regime is busted

At least we know there is a lot of information floating around inside Government on this issue, says Patrick, and they are reluctant to hand it over easily.

May 24 – Patrick immediately refilled two requests – one to DFAT and one to the Minister’s Office.

June 12 – DFAT requested a 30-day extension.

June 13 – Noting the history, Patrick said no.

FOI is due on June 24.

June 18 – DFAT invoked a privacy concern to extend the request to July 23, but indicated that they were intending to provide a response in the week starting July 1.

June 24 – A short release of talking points from the Minister’s office showing the Government has legal concerns but it not weighing in.

July 5 – Radio silence

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Senate hearings reveal a senior Veterans’ Affairs official dismissed a misconduct complaint against herself while managing a $2m BUPA contract which was referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Stuart McCarthy reports on the escalating scandal in Veterans Affairs.

A Senate Estimates hearing has revealed that the national manager of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) ‘Open Arms’ veteran and family counselling service dismissed a misconduct complaint against herself “on behalf of the Minister”, while in a previous senior DVA role managing a $2.1 million “comprehensive health assessments” contract to the health care provider BUPA.

The BUPA contract is the subject of “numerous” referrals to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, by at least two different complainants.

Tasmanian Senator and former soldier Jacqui Lambie last night grilled DVA Secretary Alison Frame and other senior officials in a Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Estimates hearing. The hearing took place against the backdrop of the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission, which has already exposed the department’s “toxic culture” and is due to hand down its final report in early September.

🚨 Breaking: A Senate FADT Estimates hearing last night revealed @OpenArmsSupport veterans & families counselling service national manager Leonie Nowland is the subject of "numerous" complaints to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In her previous @DVAAus role as the… pic.twitter.com/6pioNrvYTC

— Stuart McCarthy (@StuartMcCarthy_) July 2, 2024

Lambie said numerous written misconduct allegations and corruption complaints have been made against one of the department’s most senior officials, who she named under Parliamentary privilege. The complaints relate to the official’s management of a $2.1 million dollar contract to BUPA and its “consultation sessions” for a program announced by then Veterans’ Affairs Minister Darren Chester in the 2019 Federal Budget. The program purportedly to conduct “comprehensive health checks” for a group of Australia’s most vulnerable veterans.

One of the affected veterans seeking to be involved in the consultation sessions emailed Chester on 22 July 2020, alleging the DVA official:

“… has admitted that she has been monitoring me on social media. I do not feel safe and have no faith that she would accurately record the conversation or report my views to the BUPA team. I am asking for your direct intervention Minister.”

Two days later, the official who was the subject of the complaint, wrote to the complainant “on behalf of the Minister” and dismissed the complaint against herself.

Even more alarming allegations, included in the NACC complaint cited by Lambie, are that the official cyber-stalked and gaslit numerous veterans who complained of conflicts of interest involving Professor Jane Burns – a central figure in the billion-dollar PwC/DVA “veteran centric reform” imbroglio – who was employed by BUPA while chairing a DVA national advisory committee.

Why pay $1m when you can pay PwC $30m, and help yourself to free IP?

The NACC complaint alleges the senior DVA official:

“… stalked them on social media then sent them unsolicited emails designed to gaslight them as dangerously mentally ill, with the intention of triggering their deaths by suicide.”

The official has since been promoted to national manager of the Open Arms veteran and family counselling service.

Pushed to the brink

Lambie asked the DVA mandarins testifying to the Senate hearing if the official “has been stood aside until the investigation is done, or what is happening here?” After the Chief Operations Officer pointed out that she would “not be privy to” NACC investigations and Lambie pressed the question about the subject of the complaint acting “on behalf of the Minister,” Frame replied:

“Senator, everything you’re referring to is from 2020 … When I commenced as Secretary in January 2023, I was obviously informed about anything on foot, any current investigations into current complaints against staff, but I would not be looking at anything historical that pre-dated that which I was briefed about at the time I assumed the role.”

Speaking to MWM on the condition of anonymity, the source of the 2020 complaint to Chester says “I felt like I was being bullied by one person with an ill-informed opinion, blacklisted unfairly and without right of reply.”

The 16-year Australian Army veteran became seriously ill when they returned from East Timor, where they were given the controversial anti-malarial drug mefloquine during one of the Army Malaria Institute’s anti-malarial drug trials in East Timor at the turn of the century. The veteran said when they received the reply from the DVA official purportedly “on behalf of” Chester:

“It pushed me to the point of suicide.”

US drug Mefloquine and vet suicide epidemic

Developed by the U.S. military in the 1970s and 80s and widely used by armies deployed in tropical areas since the 1990s, mefloquine is one of the known contributory factors in the international veteran suicide epidemic, including in Australia. Veterans continue to struggle to access appropriate specialist care due to accusations of malingering, or misdiagnosis with post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychiatric illnesses.

Professor Jane Quinn from Charles Sturt University told MWM “mefloquine is a known neuro-toxicant that can cause severe or chronic neuropsychiatric symptoms in some people, including suicidal ideation and completed suicide, even at therapeutic doses.”

The career neurotoxicology researcher, advocate and military widow has published numerous peer reviewed papers and provided expert testimony to official inquiries in Australia, the U.K. and Canada on the toxic effects of mefloquine, particularly among military veterans. “That this drug’s adverse effects have been underestimated in their negative impact on military personnel in both war and peacetime operations is a shameful chapter in our international military history,” says Quinn.

Official ADF medical records from the source of the misconduct complaint include neuro-imagery showing they had sustained a brain injury consistent with decades of research on mefloquine’s neurotoxic adverse effects, after they were given mefloquine during the Army drug trial in East Timor.

Veterans’ pleas fall on deaf ears

Advocates have been pleading for a decade with Defence and DVA officials to conduct a dedicated outreach and rehabilitation program for affected veterans and their families. In 2016, former soldier Chris Stiles took his own life weeks after begging then Australian Defence Force (ADF) surgeon-general Tracy Smart for help at a public forum in Townsville.

Another soldier involved in the same series of drug trials, former Army medic David Whitfield, pleaded with current Veterans’ Affairs Minister Matt Keogh when he appeared with his wife Alison in a live interview on the ABCs QandA program last year. Mr Whitfield died by suicide several months ago.

Correspondence including emails between Smart, DVA and other Defence officials obtained by MWM suggest former DVA official Dylan Kurtz was involved in the inception of the BUPA program while employed as a ministerial advisor to Chester in 2019.

DVA officials duck for cover

When contacted by MWM, Kurtz, who has since moved to Services Australia, said “I would recommend you refer questions regarding this government decision to the media team at DVA.” The DVA media team did not respond to MWM‘s written queries. DVA Repatriation Commissioner Kahlil Fegan declined our interview request last week.

In a 5 March 2019 email to a DVA official, Smart said of Chester’s budget announcement, “we sensed that the [minister’s office] was looking for a way to appease the concerns” of ADF veterans who were adversely affected by mefloquine and other anti-malarial drugs during their ADF service. According to U.S. and European drug safety regulators, mefloquine is able to cause “lasting or permanent” neurological or psychiatric side-effects, or “different kinds of permanent brain damage” in a significant minority of users.

Smart has since been employed as a senior academic at the Australian National University. DVA documents also show that one of her senior colleagues at ANU was invited to participate in “clinical advisory workshops” for the BUPA program on the basis of her expertise in “medically unexplained symptoms,” while academics such as Quinn with published research on the toxic effects of mefloquine were excluded.

Another Defence senior medical advisor involved in the clinical advisory workshops emailed her colleagues in September 2019 to raise concerns the BUPA program would undermine the continuity of care for the affected veterans, arguing:

“The intent is to improve engagement with the health care system and appropriate care to optimise their health and wellbeing. … There is a risk that their care may become even more fragmented.”

Current ADF surgeon-general Sonya Bennett was the Army Malaria Institute’s research manager during the anti-malarial drug trials, and co-authored a number of the clinical trial reports published in medical journals.

Chester and Burns

MWM also contacted Chester for comment last week, but he did not respond. Burns has previously denied involvement in the BUPA contract. She has also previously declined to respond to our queries on the department’s management of the “veteran centric reform” program.

Paid to Not Reform: Veterans’ Affairs chucks $73m at PwC to dodge Royal Commission

Former Army officer and military lawyer Dr Glenn Kolomeitz says the handling of the complaint against the DVA official “beggars belief” and is “indicative of the sort of conduct evidenced at the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission” Kolomeitz, who lobbied for a Royal Commission over many years, represented or advised witnesses who have testified at the Royal Commission and dozens of DVA clients including abuse survivors. He told MWM:

“DVA has certainly come a long way, and ongoing systemic and process reform is clear, but this matter shows there are still people in that department who have not embraced positive change. Our veteran community, including future generations of veterans, cannot afford a return to the bad old days.”

Director of Flinders University’s Open Door research initiative Professor Ben Wadham says the documents revealed in the Estimates hearing reflect an overall atmosphere of tension between DVA officials and their clients. Although he was unable to comment on the specifics of the complaints and says his experiences with senior DVA and Open Arms officials had been generally positive, Wadham explained:

“Among DVA staff there are some who lack empathy, have inadequate training, suffer excessive workloads, or have a poor understanding of the needs of vulnerable veterans.”

Institutional abuse

Co-author of the forthcoming book Warrior Soldier Brigand on institutional abuse in the ADF, Wadham told MWM that although DVA is a public service institution rather than a military one, evidence from the Royal Commission and previous inquiries shows “a degree of institutional culpability in veteran deaths and trauma over time,” citing the Robodebt scheme as an example of how “institutions can be abusive.”

The East Timor veteran who made the misconduct complaint to Chester in 2020 told MWM that the senior DVA official at the centre of this scandal “should be sacked,” but they would like to meet with Frame because:

“At the very least, I would like an apology for serious breaches of ethics and privacy. And I would like to talk to Alison about how to fix this situation.”

Kolomeitz told MWM after watching the Senate Estimates hearing, “hopefully DVA Secretary Alison Frame might be able to meet with this veteran because it looks like a good opportunity to maintain the momentum of reform and help improve how the department is working.”

The Albanese Government’s draft legislation intended to fix the “not fit for purpose” DVA system identified in the Royal Commission’s 2022 interim report is expected to be tabled in Parliament later today by current Veterans’ Affairs Minister Matt Keogh. Whether the revised legislation will address the remaining systemic problems laid bare in last night’s Senate hearing remains to be seen.

This post was originally published on Michael West.

While Peter Dutton gets headlines for his nuclear fairytale and the Labor Government presses on with its AUKUS submarines, the fallout from nuclear bomb testing in the Pilbara in 1956 finally reaches court. Sue Roff reports from London.

In 1956, on the remote Montebello Islands off Western Australia, an atomic bomb was tested. It was supposed to be no more than 50 kilotons, but in fact measured 98 kilotons, or more than six times the strength of the bomb dropped over Hiroshima in 1945.

Ever since then, Australian and UK Governments have suppressed the facts and denied compensation to the victims. That may finally be about to change.

Three months ago, veterans of Britain’s Cold War radioactive weapons tests formally launched proceedings against the UK Ministry of Defence, alleging negligence in its duty of care to the men themselves and their families before, during and after the tests that began at the Montebellos in 1952.

Oli Troen, an Associate at the well-respected London human rights law firm of McCue Jury, told MWM, “The opening phase seeks the full disclosure by the Ministry of Defence of all records of blood and urine testing conducted during the weapons trials, with compensation sought for MoD negligence and recklessness if they were lost or destroyed.”

At the same time, the veterans have made an offer to resolve their claim through the creation of a Special Tribunal with statutory powers to investigate and compensate if decades of cover-up are established.

A very big bomb

In October 1955, the Director of British atomic and thermonuclear tests in Australia, Professor William Penney, wrote to the Chair of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority about the two detonations that were planned for the Montebello Islands in May and June 1956:

‘Yesterday I think I gave you the impression that the second shot at Montebello will be about 80 K.T. [kilotons]. This is the figure to which we are working as far as health and safety are concerned. We do not know exactly what the yield is going to be because the assembly is very different from anything we have tried before.

We expect that yield will be 40 or 50, but it might just go up to 80 which is the safe upper limit.

In fact, in recent years, it has been listed on the website of ARPANSA [the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency] as 98 kilotons.

Source: arpansa.gov.au

The politics

A UK memo found in the UK National Archives  that is undated but filed around August 1955, states:

“TESTS IN Montebello ISLANDS (CODE NAME ‘MOSAIC’) 25 7.

“We had agreed with the Australian Government that we would not test thermo-nuclear weapons in Australia, but [Australian Prime Minister] Mr. Menzies has nevertheless agreed to the firings taking place in the Montebello Islands (off the North-West coast of Western Australia), which have already been used before for atomic tests [emphasis added].”

“As already explained, the Australians are very sensitive on the question of thermo-nuclear explosions, and although the true character of these tests is understood by the authorities immediately concerned, knowledge of the trials is restricted to a very small circle and no public statement has so far been made; when it is made, it will therefore require very careful handling.”

“Apparently it is still being very carefully handled by government agencies. 70 years after the British atomic and thermonuclear tests started in Australia scores of files held in the Australian National National Archives are marked ‘Not yet examined’. We urgently need to create an independent archive of Australia’s nuclear past.”

The fallout

Canberra Times, 20.6.1956 (trove.nla.gov.au)

In Roeboure, some 200km away from the blast, a witness – then seven-year-old John Weiland wrote later of “hearing and feeling the blast before going outside to see the cloud. My mother said she remembers material falling on her. I was in primary school at the time and we all stood out on the verandah to watch the cloud.”

Weiland later wrote to ARPANSA asking “if any testing was done or any follow up done particularly with the 30 or so children of the school. But I was told there was no radiation blown across from the islands.”

In December 1957, eighteen months after the second G2 Operation Mosaic blast at the Montebellos, the five scientific members of the Atomic Weapons Safety Committee (AWSC) appointed by the Australian government published a report titled ‘Radioactive Fallout in Australia from Operation ‘Mosaic’ in The Australian Journal of Science.

They stated that “After the second test [June 19, G2] the cloud moved northeast over the Timor Sea without approaching the mainland of Australia.’ However ‘a pronounced stable layer produced a marked bulge on the stem which trapped a small quantity of particulate material and this was spread to the south-east of the Montebello Islands …The more finely suspended material’ or ‘debris’ was dispersed in the first 48 hours …’ although there was light rain over Marble Bar.

Thirty years after this AWSC report, the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia issued its 1987 report after 18 months of hearings around Australia and in London. In relation to Mosaic G2 it reported:

“7.4.25 The post-firing winds behaved similarly to those after Gl, i.e. they weakened and then began to blow to the south and east. An analysis of the trajectories of fallout particles showed that fallout at Port Hedland occurred 24 hours after the explosion and consisted of particles that originated from 20,000 feet in the region of the top of the stem and the bottom of the cloud….[RC 270, T24/57).”

Clearly part of the main cloud did cross the mainland.

The Royal Commission also concluded, “The Safety Committee communications with the Minister for Supply soon after the second explosion, when it reported that the cloud had not crossed the coast, with the implication that there was no fallout on the mainland, were misleading.”

Nearly forty years later, in January 2024, John Weiland submitted a query to the Talk to A Scientist portal of ARPANSA, asking for information. The unsigned response four days later referred him to Appendices B & C of a 32 year old document attached to the official response. A report, ‘Public Health Impact of Fallout from British Nuclear Tests in Australia, 1952-57, has a diagram annotated ‘Trajectories taken by radioactive clouds across Australia for the nuclear tests in the Mosaic and Antler Series. The main debris clouds from Mosaic Rounds 1 and 2 are not shown as they remained largely over the Indian Ocean, moving to the northeast parallel to the coast.’ (emphasis added).

This diagram doesn’t correlate with the maps in the Royal Commission Report north of Broome nor those of the AWTSC report in 1957 south of Port Hedland.

Butement et al, The Australian Journal of Science 20:5:1957 p.130

The cover-up

I have published extensive archival evidence about the score of coverups that have occurred over the past 70 years.

They range from the agreement of Prime Minister Menzies to the progressive testing of hydrogen/thermonuclear devices in preparation for the full assembly in 1957 for the Grapple tests at Christmas Island, including testing less than two months before the start of the 1956 Olympic Games in downwind Melbourne, and Menzies’ hope of getting tactical nuclear weapons for Australia by his collusion.

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? Counting down to the 1956 Melbourne Olympics

They also include the submission of ‘sanitised’ health data on Australian test participants to the 1985 Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia.

I presented my concerns about the role of UK official histories of the tests in a seminar hosted by the Official Historian of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office by invitation in February 2024.

The victims

Representing the victims, Oli Troen adds that “The Veterans previously sought redress through the English Courts, losing in the Supreme Court in 2012 when they could not prove they experienced dosages of radiation exposure. This meant they could not demonstrate their injuries resulted from that exposure.”

Blood tests taken at the time and in the years after presence at a test site are key to proving whether the legacy of rare illnesses, cancer and birth defects reported by the veterans is due to radiation from the nuclear tests and whether the government is culpable and can now be held accountable for their suffering.

A Freedom of Information tribunal has ordered the handing over of the blood tests of veteran and decorated hero Squadron Leader Terry Gledhill, who led ‘sniff planes’ into the mushroom clouds of thermonuclear weapons on sampling missions. This new case seeks to force the government to hand over such records for up to 22,000 UK veterans.

Talking the Talk: Dutton dumps climate commitment, Labor speaks with forked tongue

This post was originally published on Michael West.