on 26-02-2014 09:13 AM
This witless little incompetent should be sacked, removed from the Labor party and Shorten should distance the party from this pathetic union hack.
This, on the day Labor was shown up for their shameful defence of Craig Thomson, now we are subjected to this appalling insulting of an honourable serving Officer on national TV and not having the intestinal integrity to apologise for his attack:
THE government has demanded Bill Shorten discipline frontbencher Stephen Conroy for breaking with convention in a “cowardly”, “unprovoked” and “outrageous” attack on a senior serving army officer.
Coalition senator Ian Macdonald shut down a Senate estimates hearing after Senator Conroy, Labor’s defence spokesman, launched an extraordinary attack on the head of the government’s border protection operation, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, accusing him of being involved in a political cover-up.
Senator Conroy likened General Campbell to the fictitious Colonel Nathan Jessup from the movie A Few Good Men for his approach to restricting the flow of information on the interception of asylum-seeker boats.
“That is called a political cover-up, a political cover-up, you are engaged in a political cover-up,” Senator Conroy yelled from the bench.
The most bitter exchange began after General Campbell said it was necessary to keep details of Operation Sovereign Borders secret to avoid damaging Australia’s relations with its neighbours and to prevent people-smugglers from gaining an advantage.
Senator Conroy retorted: “Can’t we handle the truth?”
General Campbell responded: “It kind of sounds like a movie, senator.”
Senator Conroy: “It is a movie, and we are living it, Colonel Jessup. I mean seriously, you can’t tell us the truth, you can’t tell the Australian public the truth because you might upset an international neighbour. That is called a political cover-up.”
General Campbell remained calm during the incident but said he wanted to put on the public record that he took “extreme offence at that statement”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/hearing-shut-down-over-stephen-conroys-attack-on-campbell/story-fn59niix-1226837720898
on 26-02-2014 06:38 PM
Tall bearded
Australian service personnel, irrespective of rank, are required to abide by the will of parliament as expressed in various legislations such as the Defence Force Discipline Act and the Official Secrets Acts to name but two, as well as policy decisions which they are required to implement. That is, the decision not to disclose information was not made by the Navy. It was made by the Parliament.
Now as a civilian, if you no longer want to work for your boss you can leave. In the military, during peacetime, it’s called Absent Without Leave and if you leave, when you get caught, you can spend time in a military corrections establishment (jail). As civilian, if your boss does something you don’t agree with you can tell them to go and get stuffed. In the military that’s called insubordination and off to jail you go. As a civilian, if your boss tells you do something you don’t agree with you can tell them to bugger off? In the military, it’s called disobeying a lawful command and you go to jail. That is military service involves relinquishing right which everyone else doesn’t give a second thought to, one of which is the rights to publically criticise or contradict government policy which you don’t agree with.
Now before people cry cope out, please think again. The reason why it is the way that it is for your protection. The people in the defence force are the people with the guns and the knowledge of how to use them, and Egypt and Fiji are just two examples of to what happens when they (the military) get into their head they can ignore or refuse to implement policy that they don’t agree with.
So to those who advocate that General Campbell should just disregard his oath and answered the question, I say be careful as to what you ask for, because one day you may get it, only to find just how dangerous is the thing which is behind the door you just opened.
##########################################################################################
Nah they just get the sack like everybodty else.... except their names are not released and they don't
end up having to defend a civilian charge.
(fiddling with the subordinates....gotta be a direct disobeyal of an order)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-14/army-personnel-sacked-over-explicit-emails/5092966
Six members of the Army have been sacked over a scandal involving the distribution of explicit emails that denigrate women.
Army chief David Morrison released a statement saying the six men had been part of the so-called Knights of the Jedi Council group.
Seventeen members of the group swapped footage of sex acts without the women knowing, and attached demeaning commentary.
Police say other members were challenged to try to have sex with the women.
Three of the sacked soldiers still face possible criminal prosecution by New South Wales Police, but it is unclear whether any charges have been laid.
A further 11 soldiers remain under internal investigation.
Lieutenant-General Morrison, who warned troops in June to respect women or "get out", says the six sacked men range in rank from sergeant to major and are from regular and reserve units.
Hundreds of emails were allegedly distributed and about 90 other people - predominantly Army personnel - have been implicated in the scandal.
Lieutenant-General Morrison says four have faced administrative disciplinary action, while Defence is considering the futures of several others.
He says more than 120 Army personnel have been discharged in the past year, mainly in relation to misconduct, inappropriate behaviour or prohibited substances.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says the Army should take a zero-tolerance approach to the misconduct.
Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, made a similar recommendation when she investigated the culture of sexism in the Defence Force less than a year ago.
The email scandal involves a Lieutenant Colonel, majors, warrant officers, sergeants and corporals.
Ms Broderick says she is appalled at the range of people implicated.
"That's what's so abhorrent about it and it also shows the complexity of the issues that have to be solved," she said.
"Because this is just not a particular rank who are all coming together, it's across from senior officers - Lieutenant
Colonel - right through to general enlistment."
on 26-02-2014 06:42 PM
So, If you information was correct tall bearded all those officers should have been hauled before a court martial, found guilty, then thrown in a military gaol and the key thrown away.
................. However instead of that.............. they were dishonourably discharged pending further investigation... ie
SACKED
on 26-02-2014 08:20 PM
Any ideas anybody why the last "hot issue brief" issued from the Department of Defence website is dated September 6
2013 ???
(hint)... Something else happened too around that weekend
What is a Hot Issue Brief?
A Hot Issue Brief provides initial and early advice to Ministers and Defence senior leaders on sensitive or complex matters or incidents that may require their immediate attention.
Due to the immediacy of preparation of Hot Issue Briefs, the advice provided can sometimes prove to be inaccurate or require further clarification once the situation has stabilised.
Hot Issue Briefs do not represent the full and complete facts associated with an incident or issue. This should be borne in mind in reading Hot Issue Briefs.
Public Release of Hot Issue Briefs
The Black Review of the Defence Accountability Framework challenged Defence to enhance individual and collective accountability.
Placing on the public record Defence's advice to the Minister for Defence on these issues - including instances of inappropriate behaviour - is a part of that accountability.
From 20 January 2012, Hot Issue Briefs will be released on the Defence Website, usually within one week after submission to the Minister.
The only exceptions to that rule will be individually and personally approved by the Secretary of the Department of Defence or the Chief of the Defence Force, and based solely on criteria that public release would:
endanger operational outcomes,
prejudice legal proceedings, or
impede or frustrate ADF Investigative Service or civil police investigations.
In those circumstances, the Secretary or the Chief of the Defence Force will be required to set an expiration date on the information in that Hot Issue Brief, after which time the brief will be publicly released.
This approach is consistent with the key changes to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 that came into effect on 1 November 2010, and the Information Publication Scheme.
Link below to hot issue briefs up to 6 September 2014.... obviously the Defence Force administration has decided
that EVERY Hot issue Brief since the 6th September 2013 may "endanger operational outcomes"..... Shhhh...
http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/HotIssueBriefs/
on 26-02-2014 08:41 PM
"No, it comes down to whether the guy is involved in a political cover up and it is clear he is, it is up to the opposition to take him to task on that."
How exactly would you confirm that a senior serving ADF officer is involved in a political "cover up" DY?
"Mmm, So Conroy behaved in a similar manner that some LNP members behaved for 3 years and now it's an outrage."
Again facts would be good, not innuendo.
I do expect that often research is lacking within some posts within CS, even "facts" posted are sometimes (often?) nonsense , but it is obvious DY that there is no comprehension whatsoever of the ADF's command arrangements:
The elected Australian Government controls the ADF. The Minister for Defence and several subordinate ministers exercise this control.
I would entertain "the minister is covering up" but to (in ignorance) accuse a serving officer bound by : The
Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 which, imposes the requirement to comply with orders given, and which will include not revealing operational matters, of a direct political cover up is outrageous and just as cheap a shot as that of Conray.
At least Shorten appreciates the circumstances:
"Labor leader Bill Shorten has told his defence spokesman the military head of the Government's border protection operation deserves his respect, the ABC has learned"
After many years I am still subject to the UK Official Secrets Act, and if there are aspects of my past RAF service career that I found not to my political liking when serving, I would accept them. Sadly many civilians have no concept of military discipline/regulations, and will happily take cheap shots at those who are not allowed to retaliate.
nɥºɾ
26-02-2014 08:47 PM - edited 26-02-2014 08:47 PM
search hansard from the year 2007 MM , look in the senate section where Senator Ronaldson calls the senior officer present a liar in estimates. it might help put this into perspective for you.
on 26-02-2014 09:21 PM
The ADF can decide if it wants to, fine you, lock you up, demote you,Just put a mark on your record or it can decide you, for any reason best known to them , are "unfit to be remaining in the service" and discharge you.
I still think compulsory service training would be a good thing might give some people a dash of reality.
on 28-02-2014 11:24 AM
Let’s introduce a few facts.
If memory serves, there are currently over 40,000 serving in uniform, and by your figure 120 were administratively discharged, (used to be called a dishonourable discharge) for sexual misconduct. Therefore I would suggest, that statistically, the incidence of this kind of conduct happening in Defence Force is significantly lower than the community at large. Lower but more new worthy.
As for
“Nah they just get the sack like everybody else.... except their names are not released and they don't end up having to defend a civilian charge”.
That is news to me. Isn’t it a case that currently there are a number of such cases before the criminal court, with the ADFA case being one example. That this, for service personnel this conduct carries two penalties. Firstly they are “administratively discharge” for having committed an offence under Defence Law (Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline) and then, the brief is handed over to the civilian police who decide if further charges are to be laid, and if charges are laid, it falls to civilian the court to decide guilt and if guilty the penalty.
That is, any penalty under the Defence Force Discipline Act in in addition too, and not in substation of what a civilian court can/will impose.
As for throwing away the key, I thoik you've been watching too much Jag - the maximum penality that a Military court can impose in peace time is 3 months, followed by an Administrative Discharge.
on 28-02-2014 11:27 AM
That's wrong and it's been proven in Parliament yesterday. He did no such thing and showbag had to withdraw it.
on 28-02-2014 11:43 AM
@silverfaun wrote:That's wrong and it's been proven in Parliament yesterday. He did no such thing and showbag had to withdraw it.
seems he was misled. ronaldson did get feisty, but he didn't say what shorten was told by another thats right. Conroy is never the less correct though, it is a cover up. more morrisons cover up than the navy. shame on morrison for using the navy to hide behind.
on 28-02-2014 11:50 AM