Mad Monk's Minions Mither* Military

The two major parties may be in furious agreement about the need for Australia to go the distance in Afghanistan but the Liberal Party is still at odds with the government over those military prosecutions. On Tuesday (October 19)  this week, Liberal members of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee (PDF) got stuck into Chief of the Defence Forces, Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston in support of Tony Abbott's mission to speak out on behalf of the commandos who might not be getting a fair go without criticising the system (he hastens to add).

Mark Davis covered the story for the Fairfax papers but perhaps because he was in a hurry to file he missed some interesting exchanges between Houston and Senator Julian McGorran (page 23 of the PDF):

Senator McGAURAN—You mentioned that when you made your submission to the DMP, you were not in possession of the brief of evidence, but you would have been well and truly briefed and across that operation on that fateful night.

Were you saying that at no time in your submission to the DMP that you even went to the heart of that operation that night, even clarifying the points to the DMP of the soldiers’ actions or just the whole operation itself, that you avoided that in your submission?

Air Chief Marshal Houston—The circumstances of that night were the subject of operational reporting. As I mentioned, and inquiry officers report, I am privy to the content of the inquiry officers’ report. I saw that in 2009. But when the case was passed over to ADFIS to do further investigation, I was not in any way kept informed about what they found, or the evidence that they were able to come up with. That was referred directly to the DMP ... I am not in a position to basically represent a point of view unless I know the full extent of the evidence. As I said earlier on, I think it is important that the command chain respect the integrity of the prosecution process. I have been at pains to do that, and so has the rest of the command chain.

Senator McGAURAN—That confirms Senator Johnston’s questioning and mine. In your submission to the DMP, you missed the opportunity to put a point of view and you were asked for a point of view. You did not go to the operation of that night. God knows what is in that report—some sort of waffly legalistic mumbo jumbo when in fact you had an opportunity to represent exactly what happened on that night, and if not, stand up for the soldiers.

Air Chief Marshal Houston—I do not see it in those terms, because this is a process that would be very similar to the civilian process. When the charges are referred to the registrar, at that point the defending lawyers will have access to the brief of evidence and, as is the case in civil jurisdictions, those defence lawyers will be able to engage the DMP, and if they think that this is an unreasonable set of charges, they can engage the DMP in exactly the same way as happens in civil jurisdictions.

Senator McGAURAN—Okay, civil jurisdictions. DPPs seek opinions from people who give their firm opinions as to whether or not the prosecution should go ahead. They seek definitive submissions, not people avoiding the question.

Air Chief Marshal Houston—My understanding is that that—

Senator McGAURAN—It sounds like you have avoided it.

Air Chief Marshal Houston—No, no, we have not avoided it.

Senator McGAURAN— ...You would have been quite aware, more than anyone, of the operation that night, yet it did not make up any part of your submission. You seemed to dance around some legality in regard to process, and you missed the opportunity to clarify the soldiers’ actions or the operations that night. It strikes me from what I have heard today and previously that you have either been intimidated by this issue perhaps getting out in the media, by some public opinion or by your political masters, or all three. Before you submitted this submission, did you speak to the minister?

Air Chief Marshal Houston—I do not accept the fact that we were intimidated by anybody during this process. We followed the process as we understood it. I do not see how we could possibly have done what you suggested without having access to the brief of evidence. The brief of evidence was the basis for the charges. How can we possibly represent— 

Senator McGAURAN—You knew everything that happened on that—

Air Chief Marshal Houston—Will you let me finish? How can we possibly make a representation on a brief of evidence that we have not seen, we do not know the detail of—

One thing's for sure after McGauran's hectoring treatment of Houston: Christopher Pyne, Shadow Minister for Defence, won't be the go-to guy when "senior Defence figures" find themselves at odds with the Government over Defence policy. Still, at least next time Tony Abbott fronts Alan Jones he'll honestly be able to say that the Liberal Party is doing its incompetent best to get the three commandoes the fair go Alan thinks they're being denied by "that woman".

Mither: to fuss, pester or annoy someone.