Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

Controversy over the private conduct of high officials is nothing new. In recent weeks a few new examples have been splashed across the headlines, have dominated the TV news and have fuelled social media. We have seen revelations about Barnaby Joyce and the resultant ban imposed by the PM on sexual relationships between ministers and their staff. After a drawn-out investigation, the head of the Australian Border Force has been sacked after a personal relationship with a person seeking employment with his agency. Across the Pacific we have the unfolding story of President Donald Trump's alleged relationship with the porn actress Stormy Daniels and the controversy about efforts to keep the lady from speaking of her experiences. It would be foolish of anyone in public life to rush to pass judgement on someone else's private affairs.

Questions that are important, and legitimate, however, arise when the private conduct of public figures, politicians or senior officials especially, may involve a conflict of interest with their public duties or their public stance on issues. Legitimate questions may also arise when a public figure takes any inappropriate measures to conceal any gap between their private life and public persona. Quite often it is not the private relationship or conduct that is the problem but the actions taken by people to conceal that relationship or conduct from others, including colleagues, employers or employees, or indeed the general public. Private conduct and relationships are the subject of legitimate inquiry when they may involve a conflict of interest or otherwise impact on workplace and professional conduct.

In this context it is with some reluctance that I raise the matter of the Vice Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, whose personal affairs have featured in much Defence Force chatter over the past few years and more recently and very prominently in the pages of The Australian newspaper. I don't propose to go into the detail of the break-up of his marriage or his relationship with married Navy public relations official Commander Chloe Wootten. However, serious and persistent questions have been raised about the circumstances and chronology of the admiral's relationship with a junior officer, and matters related to that junior officer's promotion. Something happened that was serious enough to trigger two internal inquiries, one by a former ADF officer and another by the ADF Inspector-General. The defence department states that both these inquiries cleared the admiral of any impropriety. The minister says she is happy with those inquiries and that nothing more should be said of the matter.

Regrettably, I don't think the matter can be allowed to rest there. Admiral Griggs is the second-most senior figure in the ADF. Appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister for Defence and, indeed, the Prime Minister, he is at the top of the chain of command, often serving as acting CDF. Significantly, he is directly responsible for Defence Force personnel issues. Although there are privacy issues involved, his position and authority make it essential that his circumstances in the alleged conduct be dealt with in a more transparent manner. Two inquiries may have found him to have behaved with propriety, but we don't know the terms of reference of those inquiries. We know nothing of the conduct of those inquiries, what information was obtained or not obtained or what methodologies or principles were applied.

The reports in The Australian newspaper allege that an effort was made to conceal the early stages of the admiral's relationship with a junior officer when it should have been disclosed. It is not clear that those allegations have been properly investigated. Defence's response to media and other questions is to say nothing on account of privacy. I encountered this response myself when I sought to raise these matters, with some care, at Senate estimates hearings last month. Defence's response was that of immediately pulling down the shutters and declaring that there was nothing to see. Privacy is important, but in this case, involving as it does the conduct of a very senior officer, the position of the CDF and the Minister for Defence is simply not good enough.

There is also nothing to prevent Admiral Griggs from stepping forward and providing a full account of the circumstances. He was prepared to discuss these matters, somewhat bizarrely, with an international audience at an ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre lecture in February 2015. That unexpected account of his personal relationship caused some members of the audience to question his judgement. He should now be prepared to deal with the matters raised in The Australian newspaper in a clear and forthright way. If he were to do so, he might also clear the air with regard to the purported expedited promotion of his new wife, which has also been the subject of much rumour and speculation. Sunlight is a great disinfectant and, sooner or later, I hope Defence and/or Admiral Griggs will recognise this.

Moreover, quite apart from the precise facts of Admiral Griggs's circumstances, there are much wider and important issues about sexual and intimate relationships within the ADF chain of command. I asked CDF, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, about this at estimates last month. Specifically I asked the question:

… what are the rules in relation to a relationship between a senior officer and someone that's within their command?

The CDF replied:

… in general terms, there are policies in place in regard to people in a command chain. You don't want to have, in a squadron or on a ship or in a unit, a relationship there between a subordinate and a senior person. I won't even say the commander, but I would just say in that command chain.

The CDF couldn't cite the specific policies in question, but he was almost certainly referring to Defence instruction 35-3. That policy, signed off in June 2009, states:

A relationship which involves sexual relations or private intimacy, such as between husband and wife, life partners, boyfriend/girlfriend etc, where a superior and subordinate command or management relationship exists, is considered to be inappropriate in the workplace.

That's pretty clear. To use the more recent language employed to describe the PM's policy concerning ministers and their staff, there has been a bonk ban in place within the ADF chain of command.

That particular policy had been in place since 2009. However, what the CDF may be unaware of is that the policy was revoked last year by his very own deputy, Admiral Griggs. On 24 November 2017, last year, Admiral Griggs and acting Associate Secretary of Defence Rebecca Skinner quietly signed off on the new interim Defence instruction that explicitly cancelled the old policy of banning sexual and intimate relationships within the chain of command. This new policy removed all references to sexual relations within the command chain. Indeed, it directs ADF personnel to a complaints and alternate resolutions manual for detailed descriptions of the types of unacceptable behaviour. In respect of relationships, it states:

A conflict of interest may occur when there is a relationship that involves, or gives the appearance of involving, partiality, preferential treatment or improper use of rank or position; that is inappropriate in the workplace, irrespective of the employment type of the people involved. Disclosing or identifying and then managing the situation is essential.

Previously there was a ban, but this has been replaced by guidance that sexual relationships need to be carefully managed. Defence personnel are instructed that they have a responsibility to report potential conflicts of interest and inappropriate workplace relations. This new policy does prohibit sexual relationships between instructors and students, but there is no general ban. Admiral Griggs thus introduced a new policy in which there is no general ban on sexual or intimate relationships within the ADF chain of command.

It is remarkable that this significant change in policy was brought in without, as far as I can see, any debate within or outside the ADF. Given the bubbling controversy over his own personal circumstances, was Admiral Griggs the right person to sign off on such a policy? In my view, the new approach of Defence should have been subject to wider debate within and outside the ADF to ensure that personal policies are consistent with public expectation and the unique needs of the armed services. Or it could well be an appropriate subject for a rigorous Senate inquiry that could draw upon the wide range of submissions, evidence and case studies. One way or another, it would be preferable for these matters to be dealt with in a much more open and transparent manner. Thank you.