Stephens, David: Thales-War Memorial link remembered as a new Audit Office report is released – and a timely JCPAA report on integrity

David Stephens*

‘Thales-War Memorial link remembered as a new Audit Office report is released – and a timely JCPAA report on integrity’, Honest History, 27 June 2024

When the Hon. Brendan Nelson AO was Director of the Australian War Memorial (2012-19) he was also (2015-19) an adviser to Thales, a French-based arms company. This relationship caused the Veterans’ Affairs Minister of the day to write a letter to Dr Nelson counselling him about the risks of conflicts of interest (Guardian Australia; more).

Dr Nelson donated his Thales fees to the Memorial. We have no idea whether Dr Nelson’s lobbying on behalf of Thales made any difference to government decisions; presumably the company would not have kept him on as an adviser if it could see no evidence that he was making a difference.

Around this time, the then Attorney-General, Christian Porter, exercised rarely-used powers to redact a report from the Auditor-General referring to aspects of a Defence contract for the Hawkei vehicle, a Thales product. This article by William De Maria includes input – or lack of it – from Thales.

Now there is another Audit Office report on aspects of Defence purchasing of Thales products (ABC story; Crikey story). The new report targets probity and risk management issues. There is even a bottle of champagne involved, a gift from Thales to a Defence official. Again, we have no idea what if any role Dr Nelson played in the events covered in the ANAO report; they date from approximately 2014 to 2020. Dr Nelson’s name does not appear in the report.

The Auditor-General is always circumspect in reports like this but they always contain little nuggets, dots that can be joined by those willing to do the work. Researcher and writer Michelle Fahy has dealt at length and many times with the ‘revolving door’ between senior Defence echelons, uniformed and civilian, and arms companies and is working on an extensive database.

Without mixing metaphors too much, one could suggest that government officials involved in these deals should remain in their own beds for such time as their salaries are being paid by the taxpayer, politely refuse to take private (that is, without witnesses) phone calls from or meetings with urgers, and refrain from accepting or soliciting gifts or hospitality. They could even cease moving from their Defence jobs to jobs with the firms with whom they dealt previously, though that would require some more robust government rule-setting about the revolving door and conflicts of interest.

That is what ordinary Australians have a right to expect from people who work for them, especially when these people wear crisp military uniforms and salute our flag. Or when they cultivate a reputation as national scoutmasters making speeches about values and leadership.

Coincidentally, this week the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) put out a report on ethics and integrity in the public sector. Recommendation 1 goes like this:

The Committee recommends the Department of Finance issues guidance that makes clear to public officials that if they breach finance law [**], suggesting there was no malice or personal gain is not sufficient to fulfil their obligation under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 to act honestly, in good faith, and for a proper purpose (para 6.22).

Very good. Very relevant.

*David Stephens is editor of Honest History and a member of Defending Country Memorial Project.

** Note on what is meant by ‘finance law’ (from the JCPAA report):

6.11 Public sector probity and ethics obligations are established, operationalised and assessed through a range of cascading frameworks. The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) sets the governance, accountability and performance framework for Commonwealth entities and establishes the general duties of public sector officials. Public sector officials have a duty of care and diligence; a duty to act honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose; a duty not to improperly use their position or information gained through their position; and a duty to disclose interests.[2]

6.12 The PGPA Act requires the accountable authority to, amongst other things, govern the entity in a way that promotes the proper (efficient, effective, economical and ethical) use and management of public resources.[3]

6.13 Probity and ethics in the APS are legislated in part through finance law. Finance law is defined in the PGPA Act as: the PGPA Act, the rules, any instrument made under the PGPA Act (including the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines), or an Appropriation Act.[4] The PGPA Act states ‘to avoid doubt, the finance law is an Australian law …’ for the purposes of the APS Code of Conduct (CoC), which is contained in the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act).[5]