[Peetwo]

Sen Fawcett decimates Defence absurd decision to deny Ukraine Taipans?? -

Via Senator Fawcett's YouTube channel:

Hansard of above:

Senator FAWCETT: CDF and Secretary, can I acknowledge up-front that, whilst estimates processes can appear to be the parliament beating up on the department, I think everyone on the committee understands and respects the good work that the majority of people in Defence do day after day, supporting Australia, its interests and our community. But, as you've acknowledged in talking about the first principles review, we can always be better, and this process is designed to help the department to be as good as it can be. With that preamble, can I ask the question: who signs off on the briefs to government over issues such as the Taipan helicopter and its serviceability? Do you do that personally?

Gen. Campbell : Senator, I didn't hear the last part: the Taipan helicopter and something.

Senator FAWCETT: Its serviceability and availability and the Ukraine issue; all those things. Who signs off on those briefs to government?

Mr Moriarty : It does vary. Some submissions go through the CDF and me. Occasionally, there'll be a brief from the CDF or me. At other times it will be another appropriate officer in the department. Often, the CDF and I are copied in.

Senator FAWCETT: Okay. Let's be specific, then. Regarding the briefs around the Ukrainian requests for Taipan: who authorised those briefs to government in order to provide the ministers with talking points?

Mr Jeffrey : As the secretary has said, it does vary, so we'd need to take it on notice. Sometimes I can be signing the brief; sometimes it can be from the head of Military Strategic Commitments, if it's a specific operational item; and sometimes it can be the head of Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group. It depends on the issue of the advice.

Senator FAWCETT: There's one issue here, which is whether we provide the helicopters. One of the outcomes of the first principles review is supposed to be accountability. Who is accountable? Who is responsible for approving the briefs that go to government over this issue of whether we donate the Taipan to Ukraine?

Mr Jeffrey : I think we'll take it on notice. It's not about trying to obscure it; it's just that the questions around disposal of the MRH-90 are dealt with by the department, but there were three group heads or service chiefs: the Chief of Army, the Deputy Secretary of Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and I were all involved in that advice. As for who specifically signed it off, I'll need to get that on notice for you.

Senator FAWCETT: That would be useful. Given that it's some years after the implementation of the first principles review, where the whole intent was to move away from a committee process where nobody actually took responsibility, I'm a little disappointed to hear that, with an issue this live, we can't say who's responsible for advice to government. Can I take you to the three reasons that government ministers, quoting Defence advice, have given as to why we are not considering providing them and, in fact, have rebutted the request from the Ukrainians. One is that it's too late, one is that they're potentially not safe and the other is that they're not the right platform for Ukraine. There are some documents that I'd ask to be distributed, just in case you want to reference them. Minister Wong, in her response to me last week in question time, said that, by the time Defence had received the request from the ambassador from Ukraine, the helicopters had already been subject to extensive disassembly. If you look at document 1, which I've asked to be distributed, you will see that the Deputy Prime Minister, in a radio interview, said:

… what became clear is that the value in those frames lay in the spare parts that they could generate. Those frames have been since then stripped of those parts …

That's very clear messaging to the Australian people that it is too late. Who signed off on that brief?

Senator McAllister: Perhaps we can just wait for those documents to be distributed. None of those documents are before the officials at the moment.

Senator FAWCETT: Sure. The question, though, is about who signed off on the brief to the government that the parts had already been stripped from the helicopters. You can verify that in the documents; that's fine. But the fact is that is what was said by the ministers, including Minister Wong just last week, who made that statement in the Senate. Who signed off on that brief?

Senator McAllister: Senator Fawcett, I'm not trying to be difficult. You have very thoughtfully—I appreciate it—prepared copies that are shortly, I understand, to be distributed to officials. I'm reluctant to ask them to comment on material that they can't see.

Senator FAWCETT: Okay. Minister, do you deny that Defence has provided a brief to the government on the Taipan helicopter and included the fact that parts have been stripped?

Senator McAllister: That is a question that you can put to the officials.

Senator FAWCETT: I have just put the question and I want to know who signed off on that brief.

Mr Philip : The government received a letter from the Ukrainian government, dated 17 December and received on 19 December, in relation to this request. We provided advice to the government—to the acting defence minister—on 8 January. On 18 January, the acting defence minister sent a response letter to the Ukrainian ambassador.

Senator FAWCETT: That's very helpful, but it doesn't answer the question. Who signed off on the brief that enabled both Minister Wong and the Deputy Prime Minister to say to the Australian public that all the parts have been removed? Who signed off on that brief?

Mr Jeffrey : I'll just repeat the answer. We'll need to take on notice who specifically signed the advice. It's not typically something that we would offer to this committee. The nature of advice to government is obviously confidential. Who signs it is less important than that it comes from the department, but we will take it on notice.

Senator FAWCETT: Let's start there. The department writ large is responsible; okay. As for the photographs that have been published by various news channels and the ABC—I recognise that they were not taken last week; they are a few weeks old—I have information from people on the ground that they are largely representative of the fact that aircraft still with engines, main rotor gearboxes, main rotor heads, tail rotor gearboxes and tail rotors are sitting in the hangar in Townsville, which says that the statements that have been provided for the ministers to make are not technically accurate. They may have been accurate for the airframes that were at 6th Regiment in Holsworthy, but they are not representative of the whole fleet. Who did the due diligence to fact-check that advice before it was provided to government, given that the evidence that has come to light shows that there are aircraft in Townsville which, whilst they have had parts removed and are not flyable, are still airworthy and, in some cases, substantially complete?

Major Gen. King : My division is responsible for the sustainment and acquisition of all of the helicopters, including the MRH-90 and, indeed, the disposal process and working with Airbus Australia Pacific and NATO Helicopters in relation to the disposal process. The photos that you refer to that were unlawfully taken in that facility were taken some months ago and not some weeks ago; nonetheless, I take your point in relation to the configuration of those aircraft. As for the statements that have been made about those aircraft and their status of disassembly, at no stage have we discussed the aeromechanical components; we've discussed the level of disassembly. I do not refute that there are, in some cases, aspects such as main rotor gearboxes and landing gear still attached to those aircraft. You would appreciate, given your experience, that items such as main rotor gearboxes are large. They require care in handling and, in many cases, it makes no sense to remove those from the aircraft until you are ready to transport them or you have the equipment to move them appropriately.

All of the aircraft that have been removed from service have undertaken a demilitarisation process, and this largely is where we refer to the disassembly. I note that in the media many have spoken about things such as well-meaning people who are capable of reassembling aircraft. The complexity is not in the aeromechanical components. It's not in the rotor blades or the gearboxes; it's in the black boxes and their interface into the software of the aircraft. The first of the three phases of disposal was demilitarisation. That is removing sensitive items, ITAR items, such as the radios, the plant computers and the self-protection systems. Many of those systems you can't see in those photos because they sit inside the aircraft. They are fundamental to how a software-driven aircraft operates. They are not aeromechanical components. But you cannot fly that aircraft, even in a degraded way, without those systems being attached to the aircraft.

When we talk about the complexity of the system, we're talking about those systems that you can't see in those photos that relate to how we've commenced the disassembly. Of course, a number of the mechanical components, such as engines and gearboxes, have been removed from the aircraft and are being fed back through, as per the disposal process, to support what was agreed, which was to support the other nations in feeding those parts back in through the OEM to support their chronic supply chain issues.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. I accept all that you have said, but it does not change the fact that one of the priority parts is tail rotor gearboxes. People across the world who operate this aircraft know that tail rotor gearboxes are a priority, so they would be one of the first things that would be removed. But there are still, as we speak today, aircraft in the hangar that have tail rotor gearboxes attached. So, the statements that have been made that all those parts have been stripped and it's beyond recovery and it's too late, which I assume ministers have made on the basis of advice from Defence, are not correct. Whilst I understand your point that things like crypto or radios that have ITAR significance have been removed, other nations have provided F-16s and other complex aircraft—again, often fly-by-wire type equipment—and the Ukrainians have worked with other partners to resolve those issues. So, the statement that Defence has made—the first of the three points—that it is too late, is true for some airframes but not the whole fleet. Can I get your confirmation that there are still some aircraft in Townsville which, whilst not complete, are not beyond recovery and are still airworthy, in that the parts have been removed by qualified technicians, using appropriate procedures and appropriate documentation?

Major Gen. King : If I understand your question, Senator, you've asked two questions about the status and the configuration of those aircraft and about the process under an airworthiness system in order to remove those components and, potentially, reattach or put those components back on the aircraft. Yes, I can confirm that there are some dynamic components—by that, I mean gearboxes—that are still on aircraft in Townsville. There are a significant number of components that have been removed, though, from all aircraft, including those in Townsville, that make it complex. I haven't had a chance to read what you've provided, but I don't believe that it has been said that those aircraft have been completely disassembled or all disassembled. I think we've used the term 'largely disassembled'. I think the context is the complexity of reassembly, and not just the aeromechanical components but also the avionics systems and their interface into the software. In relation to your second point, about the airworthiness system, I can confirm that, within a week of the government announcing the cessation of flying, on 29 September, we had removed or reduced substantially the airworthiness framework around all of those aircraft, simply to support the removal of those components in an airworthy fashion so that they could be inducted back into the OEM. The aircraft themselves and many of the components that were identified as not being available for disposal or re-use no longer sat inside that airworthiness framework.

The perception that we could simply reattach those components to these aircraft is not true. We have not had an airworthiness framework around those airframes for nearly five months. A boring but important nuance in relation to how we manage these aircraft is that, when we were told to remove them from service, and the contract for sustainment of these aircraft ceased on 31 December 2023, we made a conscious decision, from the announcement of the government, to minimise the costs, step back from the contract and focus on disposal through sourcing those parts off the aircraft and not to focus consciously on things such as the airframes, where there was no interest from other suppliers or other parties who operate the aircraft.

Senator FAWCETT: Sure. Can I go to the second point, then, around safety. In document No. 7 that I have given you, Minister Conroy says about the aircraft, in an interview with the ABC: 'We have no idea whether they're safe. We don't know if they're safe to fly. We have not established whether they're safe to fly. We still don't know whether these aircraft are safe to fly. We don't know whether they're safe to fly.' Five times he makes that assertion. Has Defence provided a briefing to government ministers that the aircraft are not safe?

Lt Gen. Stuart : As you are aware, there are two air safety investigations that are currently underway by the Defence Flight Safety Bureau. We have not, and won't, draw any suppositions or conclusions before those reports are delivered. We currently expect them in April and September this year, I believe. There is no assertion or assessment around safety of the aircraft. The aircraft were grounded post the 28 July crash in the vicinity of the Whitsunday Islands, which resulted in four fatalities. Those investigations are underway. I can't speak to the minister's comments. I would expect that he was referring to the fact that those air safety investigations are underway. We've not made any assertions about the safety of the aircraft in drafting our advice as to their suitability for gifting to Ukraine.

Senator FAWCETT: I know the chair wants to wind up for morning tea. I will ask two more questions on safety; I will come back to the third issue afterwards. Document 4 which I have provided is the statement by NHIndustries after they had analysed the flight data recorder of the aircraft which had the incident in the Whitsundays. They made the point that there is no issue that has been identified with the aircraft. All systems are operating normally, which is why they did not propose to make any modifications or recommendations to other operators. Army, I am assuming, is aware of that statement that the aircraft is safe to operate, which is why New Zealand, France, Germany and other nations have continued safe operations.

Lt Gen. Stuart : Yes, Senator. We worked with the OEM to ensure access and analysis. We worked with them for the analysis. The Defence Flight Safety Bureau worked with them for the analysis of the voice and flight data recorder. It's a statement of record and fact from the data that was gathered from the voice and flight data recorder that, at the point of the accident, the engines were functioning normally. That's a fact. But drawing inference from that around broader safety issues is not what we are doing; nor should anybody else. That is for the Defence Flight Safety Bureau to determine, in terms of getting to understand the causal factors for both the Jervis Bay and the Whitsunday tragic accident on 28 July.

Senator FAWCETT: That is a valid comment for ADF operations, but the person who made this statement, NHIndustries, operate under the NATO airworthiness management framework. They have made the decision that this helicopter type is safe to return to flight. Do you acknowledge that?

Lt Gen. Stuart : I acknowledge, and I don't dispute that.

Senator FAWCETT: The submission that was made by the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations for a joint standing committee inquiry quotes Australian Defence officials who have reflected to them that the MRH-90 is a safe helicopter. Do you accept the fact that the Defence Force is telling people in the Australian community that this helicopter is safe?

Lt Gen. Stuart : We have never made any claims that the aircraft isn't safe. That can exist at the same time as the fact that there are two air safety investigations underway.

Senator FAWCETT: I accept that.

Lt Gen. Stuart : That is the reason for the decision to ground the helicopters in the first instance, particularly in relation to the Whitsunday accident, and the fact that there were four fatalities, and the air safety investigations will determine the causal factors. But we've never made any claims that the aircraft wasn't safe. The claims around its suitability and the decisions that have been taken around its withdrawal from service are quite separate from the grounding.

Senator FAWCETT: We will come to those after morning tea.

CHAIR: On that note, we will break for morning tea.

Proceedings suspended from 10:35 to 10:53

CHAIR: Welcome back, everyone.

Senator FAWCETT: Just to recap: we have been talking about advice to the government that has had the government saying to the Australian public that it was too late, that the aircraft were not safe, and that they are not the right platform. We have subsequently established that the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister have since been stripped, that they were not accurate, and that the aircraft are safe—as demonstrated by NHI and other operators. Senator Wong said in question time last week:

The advice from Defence was clear that this was not the right platform for Ukraine and Defence, and the government made decisions on that basis.

Who provided that advice to government, and on what basis?

Senator McAllister: May I make an overarching remark before asking the officials to respond? You commenced your question by characterising the evidence that was provided earlier. I do not think that accurately characterises what was described to you. Officials are happy to put on the public record their understanding of the issues before you and respond to your questions, but I don't think it assists to then summarise their advice in a way that is inconsistent with the material that is before the committee.

Senator FAWCETT: Minister, thank you for that chiding.

Senator McAllister: It is a challenge, isn't it? The officials have given advice—

Senator FAWCETT: Minister, you have asked previously not to be talked over. Could I ask for the same courtesy? Thank you. The interaction highlighted that there were some concerns; that it wasn't only mechanical parts, but electronic parts that had been removed, countered by the fact that it is a standard part of maintenance procedures to remove and replace. The Ukrainians have adapted to the same condition with other advanced systems from other nations. So it is not too late. It is a factor, but it doesn't mean that it is too late to consider, which is the point I am making. I come to the third point. What qualifications does someone here have to say that this is not the right platform for the Ukrainians, when the Ukrainians have done their own analysis, have spoken to their partners in Europe, and have decided that they would like to ask for it?

Lt Gen. Stuart : I might start by framing the thinking which underpinned my part of the advice. The first of the four points I would make is in relation to the substantive issue of gifting to Ukraine. It is something we take seriously. I will speak only for Army's contribution to that support for Ukraine. There are two key parts: one is that we have contributed over 517—

Senator FAWCETT: General Stuart, we have limited time. I am aware of what we have done in the past. I am asking specifically about the Taipan, and on what basis the decision was made that it was not a suitable platform. What were the qualifications of those who made that decision?

Lt Gen. Stuart : We are looking for things that are going to be suitable for the task and sustainable. In the case of the MRH, my understanding is that the task was for a CASEVAC, a casualty evacuation platform. In my experience, it is not suitable for that task. You need to have a reliable aircraft for that task, and it needs to be dedicated. That is based on our nearly two decades of experience with this platform and the performance of the system, which is consistent with all of the other user nations, which has seen an availability rate in the order of 40 per cent across the global fleet. So our people, both uniformed and contractors, for nearly two decades have worked exceptionally hard and have done a phenomenal job to get the very best out of this system. That is the best the system is capable of providing. One of the key challenges in the system, which is well documented, and which has been discussed in this committee over a number of years, is the support system and the paucity of spare parts. That system, and the paucity of spare parts, have not changed. Thirdly, it is extremely expensive to operate. I gave testimony last time that it was in the order of $45,000 per flight hour. It is well north of that now. It is a complex system, as General King and I know that you inherently understand.

Regardless of whether it is the ADF operating the aircraft, NATO partners or Ukraine, there is no evidence to suggest that the system would be able to perform any better than it currently has done, and provide any better than 40 per cent availability. That is just not sufficient and doesn't provide the assurance for any commander if it were to be used for a CASEVAC platform.

In terms of the second part of your question—

Senator FAWCETT: Could I just address that first part before we move on to the second. Could I ask that document 6 and document 2 be distributed. Document 6, which you will get in a minute, is a document released by the New Zealand Defence Force under freedom of information, or their equivalent of it. It highlights that they are getting over 70 per cent availability—on average, six out of eight aircraft available for their usage—which is why they are very happy with the performance of the aircraft. That's a recent assessment of their availability. Document 2 is based on cabinet papers from New Zealand—and these were revealed by Radio New Zealand—highlighting that the New Zealanders deliberately chose the same configuration as the Australians so that they would be able to share non-recurring engineering costs et cetera. We're talking about a near neighbour who is operating essentially the same platform—bar the HMSD; I think they use ordinary NVGs—which is capable of being configured with 12 stretchers in the aeromedical evacuation role. They are getting over 70 per cent availability, which is probably better than almost any other fleet that we have here in Australia.

Document 5—if I can get that distributed as well—highlights that they do that with their deeper maintenance, the 600-hour maintenance, being done by a team of only 13 people. That's done in accordance with Airbus procedures, run by Airbus in one location, which is exactly what the Ukrainians have proposed in their request.

We have very clear evidence from our nearest neighbour that the same configuration of aircraft that we have, run in a maintenance program operated predominantly by Airbus, in accordance with their procedures, in one location, can get over 70 per cent availability in an aircraft that can be configured to carry 12 casualties. Why is the Australian defence department advising government and saying to the public that it's not suitable, when our nearest neighbour can achieve those kinds of performance outcomes and their model is what Ukraine is proposing to operate?

Lt Gen. Stuart : We are not comparing like for like. The calculation of availability in the instance of the New Zealand fleet does not count the aircraft that aren't in what I would characterise as the operational fleet. What does that mean? If we put it in the Australian context, we would have to have in the order of six to eight additional aircraft that aren't counted in the rate of effort generation. In other words, if we were to compare on a like-for-like basis, we would need to have a bigger fleet, more aircraft available, but the availability statistics are only calculated on the smaller operational fleet, if that makes sense.

Senator FAWCETT: The figures they provide break down into both availability and serviceability. They highlight that their serviceability—I probably should have used that word—which is aircraft online, available for them to use, is an average of six out of eight. The availability is actually higher than that. Their day-to-day serviceability for people to sign out and go flying, for the Ukrainians to deploy on an AME mission, is over 70 per cent.

Major Gen. King : That's representative of eight aircraft across a worldwide fleet of just under 500 aircraft at the time. I go back to the original equipment manufacturer's data on the rolling averages. Over the last five years, that worldwide fleet has achieved between 35 and 42 per cent availability, with the exception of a three-month period. As well as that, in terms of Australia flying this aircraft, in August 2013 we became the world leader in hours flown on this aircraft. Our 59,000 hours represents 15,000 hours more than any other country in the world. What I infer from your statements is that we don't know how to operate this aircraft. I think we do know how to operate this aircraft. We're very proud of what we have achieved, but we actually have not been able to achieve anywhere near the contracted capability.

In terms of that New Zealand piece, there are some nuances in relation to how they operate the aircraft. I think it is important to reflect on all of the operators and the chronic issues that everyone is dealing with, including New Zealand, around things like supply chains.

Senator FAWCETT: General King, thank you. I am sure the Ukrainians will be happy to apply the same nuances that New Zealand do. I'd also point out that, in terms of the global figures, after Norway ditched their fleet—and that has been frequently referred to by the Norwegian equivalent of the ANAO—their internal review highlighted that part of the problem with spares was that the Norwegian defence force hadn't actually ordered the spares that they needed; hence, there were delays. They said there was as much blame on the Norwegian side as there was on NHIndustries' side. But the point is: if eight aircraft were gifted to Ukraine and they worked with their partners, as they indicated that they wish to, to operate in the same manner, with the same nuances—to use your word—as the New Zealanders do, they would have a viable AME capability. Mr Moriarty, an answer to a question on notice from Senator Reynolds about assistance to Ukraine was:

Defence has a range of mechanisms, including consultation with other government agencies and partner governments, to determine the most appropriate support to Ukraine.

Clearly, there has not been consultation with Germany or France over this issue of the NH helicopter as a support for Ukraine. Before any further disassembly is done, given that the aircraft are not irrecoverable, given that they are safe to fly and given that it is proven by a near neighbour that, with certain nuances, they can achieve over 70 per cent serviceability and they're suitable for the AME task, will the government stop the removal of parts, consult, as per your stated process, with partner nations and Ukraine to see whether there is a will on behalf of Germany and France to support Ukraine as per their request, and then gift them the existing aircraft in their existing state so that there's no more expenditure of resources and money required by the Australian defence department, so that they can work with their European partners to establish whether it's six or eight or 10 aircraft to save the lives of their troops, given that they are losing some 30,000 men, wounded or killed, every month, which is half the ADF every month? Will the government commit to actually following its process, engage with partners and see what the art of the possible is before we blindly proceed to dig a hole and bury these helicopters?

Mr Moriarty : What I can assure the committee is that we will continue to engage closely with the Ukraine contact group, where a number of the key partners of Ukraine internationally meet regularly to talk about Ukraine's requests and priorities. Those are discussed. General Campbell has participated in some of those conversations; the Deputy Prime Minister has contributed. We are actively engaged with the contact group to discuss and work through Ukraine's priority requirements.

Senator FAWCETT: But have you raised the issue of Ukraine's request for Taipans and ascertained the willingness of those partners, who are the key shareholders and interested parties in the MRH or NH90 globally, as to whether they are happy to support Ukraine's request, as Ukraine has indicated they are?

Mr Moriarty : What I am prepared to say is that air support, including rotary wing, has been a topic of some discussion in the contact group.

CHAIR: I understand Senator Green has one clarifying question.

Senator GREEN: The MRH-90 is something I have learned a little bit about recently, being based up in North Queensland. When did Defence first assess the option of providing MRH-90 aircraft to Ukraine?

Mr Philip : We received a letter from the Ukrainian government dated 17 December 2023. It was received on 19 December. We worked across Defence to assess that request, drawing upon Army Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group in terms of the operation of the platform, and within International Policy Division we worked through the international policy aspects of our support to Ukraine.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: No consideration was given by anybody at any time prior to that?

Mr Philip : We regularly have discussions with the Ukrainian government, with the Ukrainian ambassador. As the secretary mentioned, we participate in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. We work with other partners and are constantly assessing options to provide support to the Ukrainian government. In the course of discussions—I won't go into the details of government-to-government discussions—with the Ukrainian ambassador on 24 October, he raised a range of possible options for support involving Australian Defence Force platforms that were in stages of disposal. We gave him an update on the status of the MRH-90 capability. It was not a formal request. We did not conduct a formal assessment at that time. As I said, we are constantly in the process of assessing options for support to Ukraine. Depending on how a proposal develops and where we fit that into our priorities, we will dedicate more resources to that assessment. As I mentioned earlier, a formal request didn't come until that letter of 17 December.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Does government ever get proactive—

CHAIR: Senator Birmingham, sorry, but it is not the coalition's call. Lieutenant General, you had something to add. Then I'm going back to Senator Lambie, who had one clarifying point, then Senator Shoebridge, who has been very patient. Could you please provide a very short response to the question.

Lt Gen. Stuart : To add to my colleague's response to your question, Senator Birmingham, in May of 2022, which coincided with a range of requests for gifting to Ukraine but didn't include helicopters, we did look at and consider the option of gifting MRH. The reasons that we have been discussing informed the advice.

Verdict: Senator Fawcett when morally engaged is a LETHAL WEAPON...

MTF...P2