In this posting we have a good look at the failings of Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston and how on his watch the judicial system in the Australian Defence Force has denied justice to defence force personnel.
They are denied justice two ways. One is even before it hits the defence force courts where they try to cover it up and two when it does go into court the courts are a joke. You might use the term Kangaroo Court for example.
The chief of the Australian Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston retires on July 4, 2011. There is obviously the standard back slapping going on saying what a great person he is and what a great job he has done. In recent days the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has even implied she has a bit of a crush on Houston. Her exact words were:
“I wanted to say to you tonight some words you might find hard to hear and that is: every woman I know is a little bit in love with your husband,” Ms Gillard said.
“I’ve tested the proposition with the governor-general, who’s a little bit in love with your husband; I’m a little bit in love with your husband.”
“We’re all a little bit in love with Angus because of his qualities, and don’t they just shine through?” (Click here to read the full article)
Yes they do shine through!!!
I have previously done two postings where Angus Houston he gets a substantial mention. I feel it is only right that we have a good look at his achievements or lack of them before he retires. The reality is that he leaves the Australian Defence Force’s reputation in tatters from numerous view points.
At the time of writing this over 1000 people have made complaints of abuse in the Defence Force to the law firm DLA Piper who is investigating and doing up a report for the Defence Minister Stephen Smith. This came about after the recent ADFA sex tape scandal. (Click here to read the previous postings titled “Pigs On The Run – The Australian Federal Police” and “How the Defence Minister Stephen Smith and others cover up the sexual abuse of women.”
The obvious question is why did Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston not do something? There was and is a truck load of media reports of abuse. Yet Houston has sat silent. Given that there were plenty of previous enquiries why did Houston sit silent?
The facts are that the top brass in the Australian Defence Force have a history of doing nothing and covering up crimes committed in the defence force especially when a senior officer is involved or has liability.
The most recent example being the ADFA sex tape scandal. Senior officers were trying to cover it up and that is a crime in itself. What happened to them? Nothing? Air Chief Marshal Houston would be well aware what the officers did was a crime but he has taken no action against them. That makes Angus Houston just as guilty as they are.
He deliberately conceals the sexual abuse man and women in the defence force and feels that if anyone complains it is fair and just to bastardize them to try to shut them up.
There are numerous examples of this, the latest being a report on the ABC program Four Corners titled “Culture of Silence” (Click here to watch) The program relates to three people one being a female who was raped in the navy and the cover up, another being a male who was raped and bashed at the ADFA and the third being a male who was severely bashed by members of his battalion. A story on news.com.au gives an overview of the Four Corners report which is titled “Navy forced me to ‘keep rape quiet’, former cadet tells ABC’s Four Corners” (Click here to read)
It is worth noting that the Defence Minister Stephen Smith, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston and the incoming Chief of the Defence force Lieutenant-General David Hurley all refused to be interviewed for the Four Corners program. Looks like nothing will change under David Hurley.
The list goes on and on. But I think you do not have to go past the 1000 complaints and how does it get to this point.
This all happens on top of a Defence Force judicial system that is a joke and in 2009 was found to be invalid by the High Court of Australia.
It says the Defence website ” The Australian Military Court (AMC) was established on 1 October 2007 to try serious service offences involving ADF personnel. On 26 August 2009 the High Court of Australia declared the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (DFDA) establishing the AMC were invalid. The High Court’s decision removed the AMC from the military discipline structure.” (Click here to read more)
From 2007 to 2009 over 170 decisions had been handed down by the Australian military Court. Given that the High Court found the AMC to be invalid “The Rudd government then passed amending legislation to replace the military court with the old courts-martial system and wiped the convictions it had recorded, but it left the punishments in place.”
The punishments themself are currently being challenged in the High Court by a former officer, Paul Nicholas. Mr Nicholas was ultimately sacked from the defence force for “attempting to pervert the course of justice”. (Click here to read the article)
I think that is a bit rich given the amount of current serving officers, including Air Chief Marshal Houston that “pervert the course of justice” when someone makes a serious complaint of criminal offences.
Chief Air Marshal Angus Houston can only be described as a man who lacks any self-respect, integrity and honesty. A man who lies, deceives and bullshits on with the best of them. He is nothing more than a common criminal. A man who will go down in history as one of the greatest failures this country has seen as a Chief of Defence. And I have not even delved into the billion dollar financial mess of the Australian Defence Force under Angus Houston.
For those who are not familiar with the term “Going Jack” which is in the title of this post it is defined as “If an individual is not helping his mates it is said he is “going jack on his mates.” And that is what Angus Houston has done to the majority of the Australian defence force personnel, he has gone jack on them.
I always believe that you should not say something behind someone’s back if you are not prepared to say it to their face. So I sent a quick email to Mr Houston letting him know about this post. The email is below. What will he do? Nothing. Because what I have said above is true and he knows it.
From: Shane Dowling [mailto:shanedowling1@bigpond.com]
Sent: Sunday, 3 July 2011 9:05 PM
To: ‘angus.houston@defence.gov.au’; ‘Stephen.Smith.MP@aph.gov.au’; ‘tony.abbott.mp@aph.gov.au’; ‘David.Lloyd@defence.gov.au’; ‘Mark.Cunliffe@defence.gov.au’; ‘senator.ludlam@aph.gov.au’; ‘senator.brandis@aph.gov.au’; ‘senator.trood@aph.gov.au’; ‘andrew.wilkie.mp@aph.gov.au’; ‘meetinginvitation@pm.gov.au’; ‘david.hurley@defence.gov.au’; ‘governor-general@gg.gov.au’; ‘peter.leahy@defence.gov.au’; ‘alison.creagh@defence.gov.au’; ‘peter.leahy@defence.gov.au’
Subject: Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston – News Story
Dear Mr Houston
I have done a posting on my site as a farewell summary of your magnificent career as Chief of Defence.
It is titled “Going Jack – Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston”.
In one of the better parts I say “Chief Air Marshal Angus Houston can only be described as a man who lacks any self-respect, integrity and honesty. A man who lies, deceives and bullshits on with the best of them. He is nothing more than a common criminal.”
The link is http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/07/03/going-jack-air-chief-marshal-angus-houston
If you have any problems with the post please do not hesitate to let me know.
Yours Sincerely
Shane Dowling
Ph 0411 238 704
If you would like to be notified by email when there is a new post/story on this site please use the section titled “Email Subscription” which is on the right hand side of the page and on the bottom of this page. Simply put your email address in and an automatically generated email will be sent to you every time a new post/story is published. Remember to let your friends know. Thank you for your support .
Well said Shane Dowling…. Houston is lower than a snakes belly.. He is scum. He wont reply your right .. He knows what you have said is nothin but the complete truth and he sits behind lies and corruption and will not act except to lie and cover the Defence Force bullys attacking innocent people. May he rot in hell and have many sleepless night, SCUM BAG
I, personally, have had dealings with Houston when he back stabbed me, as my boss. Back stabbing is one of his finer traits.
Probably, one of his more public back stabbings, was when he was appeared at the ‘children overboard’ inquiry. At that time, he was Chief of Air Force and acting as Chief of Defence. His siding with the, then, opposition and basically ridiculing PM Howard, was pathetic. His ‘evidence’ at the inquiry was at odds with the Navy personnel, who were on scene. However, Houston said just what the opposition wanted him to say.
Normally, a Chief of Defence has a tenure of three years. However, seeing that he had been so loyal to labour, his term was extended, by three years. This extension denied an excellent soldier, Lt Gen Peter Leahy, the chance of the top job and did not go unnoticed by the ADF members, the majority of whom were well in favour of Peter Leahy. During Rudd’s reign, and just before he was deposed, Rudd suggested that Houston may even stay for a third term. By this stage, Houston’s knees were worn out and his nose could not get a darker shade of brown, so he declined. Now, he has been awarded ‘Father of the Year’, an award that will pale into insignificance due to his ridiculous appointment.
if any or all of this is true , , why have labour used ( and paid how much ? ) this man to do the people boats report , and what expertise would he have on immigration matters ?
AND WHY HAS NO JOURNALIST DONE A FULL INVESTIGATION , , OR DO WE HAVE NO TRUE JOURNOS IN AUSTRALIAN MEDIA /
Arthur, the media is gagged by Gillard and journalists have been sacked for speaking out or gagged, before they spoke. Two instances of that were Glen Milne and Michael Smith. Houston was paid a motza for his ‘enquiry’ and, no doubt, his ‘findings’ were exactly what Gillard told him. Houston wants to be the next Governor General so I hope that labour is booted out before Gillard makes him GG. The coalition will have nothing of Houston being GG as I have already alerted many, in the current opposition, to his failings, particularly in his siding with labour at the ‘children overboard’ enquiry. During his time in the RAAF, Houston would back stab anyone whom he perceived as a threat to his rapid escalation to the top job. As far as karma is concerned, Houston’s downfall is imminent. There are a lot of serving, and ex-serving members, who just can’t wait.
From my own experience,I believe that many people, particularly veterans of the ADF have been shafted by Angus Houston. In my case, I was diagnosed with a potentially fatal disease while serving in the ADF. This disease was caused by the type of work I was doing at the time. My career in the military was cut drastically short by the illness and many years later as a civilian I applied to the ADF to have my medical status at the time of discharge reduced in order to claim a DFRDB pension. The ADF has a system where applications like mine are sent to a so called “independent review”. Funny thing is, the reviewers are all employed by the ADF, so hardly “independent”. The ADF will not allow any reviews by people outside the ADF who would be regarded as truely “independent” as the ADF would have no influence over the decisions made. In my case the reviewer was Angus Houston who was Chief of The Air Force at the time. The letter I received from him was a standard rejection letter with all of the usual crap that they come up with when dealing with Veterans like myself, for instance; our GP’s know more than your specialists, there is nothing in your file to back your claim, the former ADF officer who supported your claim has an axe to grind and can’t be believed etc. etc. This would have been fine except for the fact that somebody within the ADF, when sending Houston’s letter to me, included the inter office minute that was sent to him regarding my case. When married to the signed letter from Houston, it clearly shows that not only did Houston not review my case, he did not write the letter and merely signed a letter that had been prepared for him. The decision was made for him long before he signed the letter. He would have to know how the system works. This shows the contempt that the ADF has for Veterans like myself. It also puts into question every review done by Houston in his many years at the top. As a proud former member of the ADF, I have nightmares about what I should do with these documents. I believe the treatment I have received from the ADF is harsh and unwarranted and I am certain there are many more out there like me who have been trteated in a similar fashion.
Rob, your federal member is probably your next course of action. That is unless your federal member is laboUr. Houston is laboUr’s lap dog.
Geoff, I have been down the political trail with politicians from both sides of politics. They all pretty useless and find it all too hard dealing with ADF. The current Minister in his previous tenure in in the position he holds now, wrote to me about three years ago promising me an answer after I contated him appealing for help. To this day I have received nothing. It is like beating my head against a brick wall.
Bloody hell, Rob, I really feel for you. If you know of a VVCS, Veterans and Families Counselling Service (formerly Vietnam Veterans CS) somewhere near to you, I am sure that they could help. If you are unsure where to look, please let me know where you live (town, not address) and I will enquire for you. Yours is a situation similar to the F111 reseal/deseal problems, which took years to resolve. I wish you all success.
I have been seeing a psychiatrist for many years now relating to the problems I had while a serving member and probably will for the rest of my life. This is not so much an issue of me personally, but the system itself and the way ADF treats Veterans. I believe, and I think many others do as well, that there should be some sort of official enquiry, if not a Royal Commision, then at least a judicial enquiry into the way ADF treats its Veterans. There are many questions they need to answer and just a few would be; why Specialist Doctors opinions are rejected or ignored while they accept the opinions of their own GP’s often on the same subject as a Specialist opinion that has been rejected? why the statements and opinions of former military officers and senior NCO’s are rejected or ignored with the statement that “they have an axe to grind with the service and cannot be taken seriously”; why the various military authorities involved are forgiven for the loss of much critical information from members files (one can only wonder where all that information might be)? why it takes so long for answers from ADF in relation to claims and I am not talking about weeks or months, but in many cases years in limbo often to be told that the case is rejected? why are ADF lawyers allowed to offer medical opinions when so much medical evidence provided by specialists is ignored or rejected? why aren’t truly independent reviewers used rather than those employed by ADF? I believe as well that Veterans should have access to the same level of legal expertise that the ADF has through taxpayer funded lawyers. The federal court system is very expensive and beyond the reach of most Veterans. It is well known that the ADF take advantage of this and many Veterans with legitimate claims, simply can’t afford to go to court.There are lawyers out there who will take on cases on a “no win no pay” agreement and there are many hard working advocates within the various ex-service organizations, but they are no match for the quality of lawyers that ADF can afford to employ. I have to wonder why as well that illegal immigrants seem to have access to competent legal help when making claims against the Government with quick hearing and fast settlements of the claims at no cost to them. Surely the tax paying men and women of the ADF who put on a uniform and serve their country should be entitled to something similar.