Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 is an admission of failure on two fronts: the housing crisis and our ability to defend ourselves. Defence Housing Australia is the agency tasked with putting a roof over the heads of our Australian Defence Force personnel, the fine people who serve all Australians. This bill will extend that mission significantly to include housing foreign military personnel. This bill is a flow-on consequence of the housing crisis, a catastrophe.

It has been generated particularly out of concern for the situation in Perth. They, like all of our capital cities, are in an acute housing crisis, with a rental vacancy rate of 0.7 per cent, which is frankly shocking. Only Darwin and Hobart are slightly worse. Perth is lined up to cop the brunt of foreign personnel increases related to AUKUS under Submarine Rotational Force West, which is expected to accept thousands of foreign military personnel and contractors in relation to AUKUS preparations. This bill, though, isn't just related to Perth. It extends the ability of Defence Housing Australia to house foreign personnel anywhere in the country.

Concerns have been raised about Defence Housing Australia's ability to take care of our current soldiers. I want to now focus on Defence's wilful, sustained, ongoing lack of care and accountability. 7 News Townsville reported on the story of Mitchell Connolly, a Townsville soldier who has been asking Defence Housing to fix black mould in his house that has been making his children and pregnant wife sick. After being ignored on all proper channels, he went to the media as a last resort and is now facing retribution for raising those complaints. That goes to the key problem with the Liberal and Labor approach to defence. Boats, submarines and fighter jets are all important, yet the people in our Defence Force are vital, and they are spat on by the upper brass.

To demonstrate this point, I want to read parts of a letter from a pilot who can't return to this country because Defence will arrest him for being AWOL after they delayed approving his sick leave for a couple of days. This is from his letter to me:

Dear Senator Roberts,

My name is Daniel Dare and I served for more than eleven years as a pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force.

I am writing to ask for your help and to place on the parliamentary record how senior Defence officials handled my case after a serious abuse of administrative power by my Commanding Officer (CO).

My immediate aim is a simple: To be able to return to Australia safely and be with my family and support network, so that I can recover, as I have not been able to return to Australia for over eighteen months.

I am not seeking to excuse my conduct.

I am asking Parliament to consider whether the response was appropriate, proportionate, consistent with what Defence leaders tell Australians about empathy, prevention and member wellbeing.

Like many other ADF members, I joined straight after school.

I deployed in flying and non-flying roles overseas and at home, including the Middle East and support after bushfires, floods and cyclones, and work during Operation Aged Care Assist.

I am grateful for those years and for my colleagues.

My concerns are not with them but with a leadership culture that, when confronted with an avoidable problem, chose escalation over resolution and appearances over duty of care.

In March 2023, after more than a decade of unblemished service, my CO accused me of expressing a negative view of the Squadron to another member.

The allegation was based on a text message I did not write, disseminate, or even know existed. An extremely flawed "fact find" was conducted, which did not include interviewing me.

On that basis the CO attempted to impose a twelve-month formal warning and cancel an already-approved flying instructor posting, despite lacking the authority to cancel the posting and despite the Air Force's desperate need of flying instructors.

Through later freedom-of-information requests I learned that legal advice was sought by the CO only after the punitive action had begun. The effort was abandoned only when I retained a civilian solicitor: Cameron Niven, of Soldier's Legal Counsel, who persuaded the CO's direct superior to drop it due to the deficiencies.

But by then the damage was already done. The episode was plainly maladministration.

It shattered any trust I had left in the organisation, leaving me completely disillusioned and was the point at which my mental health began to deteriorate.

Rather than pursue a medical discharge, I first tried to leave in a way that protected the taxpayer and kept me available if needed.

I applied to transfer to the Air Force reserves from December, totalling twelve years of full-time service, and agreed in advance to repay any service debt.

My new chain of command supported the application.

A delegate in the Directorate of Personnel—Air Force, denied it without even bothering to ring me and initially refused to return the application with his written reasons, in an apparent attempt to prevent me from redressing the denial.

My lawyer Mr. Niven was once again required to intervene, simply to get a document that should have been provided in the first instance. That became the pattern: stonewalling, delay and an aversion to transparent decision-making.

By late 2023 I was on medical sick leave. The grievance and review processes dragged with little substantive progress. As 31 March 2024 approached, being the date for medical review, I requested an extension of sick leave and, as a contingency, applied for long service leave from 2 April.

The application for long service leave was refused, and I was directed to report for duty on 2 April despite documented medical concerns.

Returning under those circumstances would have breached basic work health and safety obligations.

In the absence of a timely decision on my sick-leave extension, I made the difficult decision not to present for duty on 2 April in order to protect my wellbeing.

The response was senseless.

Military and civilian police were sent to my home to arrest me and return me to base in handcuffs, but I was overseas by this point.

The next phase escalated further.

An international pursuit was coordinated, drawing on ADF, Australian Federal Police, DFAT and foreign law-enforcement resources, all at the taxpayers' expense. Group Captain Maria Brick, then Director of the Strategic Incident Management—Air Force section, coordinated actions; a five-year arrest warrant was issued by Air Commodore Bradley Clarke, Commander Air Mobility Group,

I do not contest Defence's power to enforce discipline.

I question the appropriateness and proportionality of deploying such resources against one unwell member whose recent maladministration, attempt to voluntarily discharge and medical circumstances were known to the chain of command.

One act in particular crossed a line.

Air Marshal Robert Chipman, then Chief of Air Force, now Vice Chief of the Defence Force, wrote to my private overseas employer in his official capacity disclosing personal information about me and notifying them that I was subject to an arrest warrant under military law.

That letter is now the subject of a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

It is difficult to reconcile such an approach with what Air Marshal Chipman told the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, only weeks earlier, on the 13th of March 2024 about harm prevention, member wellbeing and empathy in leadership.

Publicly, Air Marshal Chipman emphasised avoiding the conditions that lead to ill-health and named empathy as the most important attribute of command.

Privately, he chose the most harmful and destructive punitive options available.

A key fact also emerged through Freedom of information.

Although my sick-leave extension was undecided on 2 April 2024 when I did not present for work, Defence medical approved a further six weeks on 6 April. That determination was not disclosed to me—

isn't that deceit?—

No effort was made to de-escalate or correct the record. Instead, the pursuit continued as if I had no medical status at all.

With salary withheld and my employment prospects damaged, I had little choice but to pursue medical separation.

That process itself became an unresolvable ordeal.

I was told I needed a Defence medical officer assessment to support approval of sick leave, which would resolve the absence, but I was denied telehealth access while overseas.

If I returned in person to obtain it, I would be arrested and incarcerated before I could be seen.

In April 2025 a medical delegate determined that I was unfit for further service and should be medically separated, with sick leave until separation.

Five days later a separate administrative process was initiated to involuntarily separate me, relying on the record of absence that had already been resolved by the medical decision and commencement of sick leave five days earlier.

Defence appeared to be weaponising the military justice system to maximise harm.

I continue to seek review of that administrative decision, at my own expense through the federal court.

This will unfortunately also cost the taxpayer as Defence will undoubtedly seek to fight it.

My matter was referred to the Director of Military Prosecutions, Air Commodore Ian Henderson, for trial before a Defence Force Magistrate towards the end of 2024, with the prospect of up to 12 months' imprisonment.

The human cost has been real.

During this period my great-uncle, Leslie, became gravely ill in December 2024 and passed away a few months later.

I asked to return home safely to see him, as we were close and he was dear to me.

This request was denied.

Given the existence of warrants and the charges, it was clear that if I returned, I would be arrested on arrival and held to face a DFM proceeding, without ever seeing him.

I spent Christmas alone overseas and later grieved his death, again alone and far away from family and support.

I am not seeking pity.

I am asking Parliament to consider what this says about the system's priorities when a member is plainly unwell and clearly trying to resolve matters lawfully.

I also want to be clear about responsibility.

Failing to present for duty on 2 April 2024 was my decision.

I am not seeking to excuse it.

I ask that it be seen in context: an earlier abuse of administrative power, an irrevocable breakdown of trust and disillusionment, deteriorating health, a documented medical basis for leave, and a year-long pattern of escalation rather than resolution.

A response that ignores medical evidence, amplifies risk, and privileges appearances over problem-solving is neither good administration nor good leadership.

I have also raised a concern, currently the subject of an FOI request, that the Air Force may have interfered, formally or informally, with civilian hiring of ADF pilots, namely at Qantas, to manage retention issues.

If true, this would mean that even those who have completed their obligations can face covert barriers to employment.

This matter deserves inquiry and formal answers.

Pilots who serve their country should not be disadvantaged by secret arrangements once their service is complete.

Across the period of my ordeal, I made extensive work health and safety reports about the impact of management actions on my wellbeing, no less than 27 individual reports.

Decisions consistently increased risk and pressure, and the cost was shifted to the member and, ultimately, to the taxpayer.

I am not exaggerating when I say that, due to how this situation was handled by Air Marshal Chipman and his subordinates, it cost the Australian tax payer millions.

On 13 August 2025 I was discharged. In the lead-up I asked for a short administrative extension so I would not be left without income while DVA and CSC claims were processed.

This request was refused. As I write, I am navigating those claims from overseas without income, after a year of withheld salary.

I wrote to both Matt Keogh and Richard Marles, on several occasions, seeking an intervention grounded in reasonableness.

They ignored it.

This is not only about one member.

It is about the credibility of Defence leadership before Parliament and the public.

The ADF cannot rely on deterrence theatre, secrecy and maximal punishment to solve cultural problems.

Strength in leadership is restraint, fairness and good judgement. When the system confuses severity for strength, it looks weak—

it is weak—

It wastes public money, undermines morale, and deters good people from serving.

It also undermines recruitment and retention by signalling that members who become unwell or seek a lawful exit will be treated as problems to be crushed, rather than people to be supported and transitioned safely.

ADF members deserve better processes than the ones I encountered. Taxpayers deserve better stewardship than funding unnecessary pursuits that serve the egos of senior officers, rather than Australia's interest. The public deserves a Defence organisation whose leaders model the empathy and prevention they commend in public.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Dare.

This is what we have to fix if we ever want to have a hope of defending ourselves and housing our defence forces. We have to take care of the Australians who choose to put their life on the line and wear the flag on their shoulder. Thank you, Daniel, and thank you, every member and veteran of the Australian Defence Force. You all deserve far better.

One Nation will be supporting this bill because, without the help of allies, we are completely unable to defend our own country. That's what's happening in this country. We need a sovereign defence capability, and that starts with valuing our members—care, not systematic abuse; accountability, not bullying to cover up; and honouring Australian values, starting with mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum. All we want is some fairness, integrity and truth.