COMMITTEES

Senator SCARR (Queensland) (16:19): Once again, I'm delighted to be mixed up with my dear good friend Senator Carr from Victoria, and I hope he's enjoying his retirement. I enjoyed my time working with both him and Senator Fierravanti-Wells very much on the scrutiny of delegated legislation, where my friend Senator O'Neill has taken up the baton and is charging forward in her typical way.

But putting that aside, I present the 190th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Persons referred to in the Senate: Mr John Fenwick. Ordered that the report be adopted. This report forms part of a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified.

On 18 December 2025, the President received a submission from Mr John Fenwick relating to a speech made by Senator Roberts in the Senate on 1 September 2025. The President referred the submission to the committee under privilege resolution 5. The committee has considered the submission and recommends that Mr Fenwick's response be incorporated in Hansard.

The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution 5. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Response as recommended by the committee incorporated accordingly— Appendix 1 Right of reply submission—Mr John Fenwick I seek to exercise my Right of Reply, having been referred to by name in the Senate. I refer to the Order for Production of Documents speech made by Senator the Honourable Malcolm Roberts on 1 September 2025 at approximately 17:17. In particular I refer to the following extract in the speech from 1 September 2025: "It was probably illegal for Army aviation to roll out TopOwl in the way they did...

Army aviation (was) most likely in breach of the law that allows Army to operate helicopters. "Once the system was assessed as being non-compliant with airworthiness codes, the head of army aviation John Fenwick, did not have authority to release the unairworthy TopOwl system into service. Nonetheless he did so.

He released it with the aid of his Director of Operational Airworthiness, David Lynch and the head of the standards branch, Tony Norton. These persons fabricated a series of documents to support service release using ad hoc processes not approved under the Defence Airworthiness Safety Regulation. The documents falsely claimed the system was authorised under the Defence Aviation Safety regulation and the system had not been assessed in poor weather conditions.

Listen to this litany. This decision to release the unairworthy system and the associated risks were then obfuscated from the external scrutiny which the Defence Aviation Safety Regulation required, through failure to comply with defence mandated risk management processes and failure to record the risk decision on a central risk register—failure, failure, failure." This submission is by me, John Fenwick, seeking to incorporate an appropriate response in the parliamentary record as permitted by Resolution 5 (Resolution 5) of the Parliamentary Privilege resolutions agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988.

Further, I seek an apology from Senator Roberts for his careless and hurtful statements. The statements made by Senator Roberts are untrue, are not (in my opinion) made within the intent of Parliamentary Privilege, and are extremely harmful. The statements made by Senator Roberts are untrue and based only on speculation.

He has made no attempt to contact me or others in order to verify them. Indeed, my wife and I have sought on several occasions to talk or meet with Senator Roberts to clarify and present facts, and he has refused to do so. There is substantial information available in the public domain to address and refute the allegations made by Senator Roberts.

This matter is also the subject of the IG ADF inquiry, and I have given lengthy and repeated evidence at this Inquiry, under affirmation, to demonstrate that they are untrue. I also suggest that accusations of this nature, given under Parliamentary privilege are an abuse of that privilege; a privilege afforded our elected representatives thanks to the service I and many others have given over 30 years.

In this context, it feels decidedly unfair to have our reputations diminished through the careless use of such privilege. Senator Roberts has sought to take advantage of the restrictions placed on me by legislation to speak publicly on matters specific to the Inquiry and, as I am still under a category of reserve service with Army, I am restricted in my ability to comment and defend myself to media.

Senator Roberts has recklessly used his Privilege without proper and appropriate checks of the facts and alternative views, which should be the minimum standard for exercising the intent of Parliamentary Privilege. It is broadly recognised that Parliamentary Privilege carries with it a corresponding obligation that it should always be used responsibly. I cannot see that any purpose is served by these baseless allegations, especially while an Inquiry remains ongoing at which these issues have been dealt in great detail, for many days, and at significant personal cost.

I recognise its use to give voice to Whistleblowers, but this is not the case here. Those people have been given voice through more appropriate means including ongoing and future inquiries. Further, these allegations potentially compromise the procedural fairness that should be afforded me and others through the Inquiry process.

These allegations are extremely detrimental to my health, any sense of procedural fairness, my professional reputation, and my family. Without an opportunity to correct the public record, I have truly suffered. It is difficult to fully address the flow on effects from this matter by this means of Response, intended to be succinct.

The public nature of the IG ADF Inquiry has been incredibly stressful on me and my family. This has then been exacerbated by being openly named and accused of unlawful conduct by Senator Roberts under Parliamentary Privilege, and knowing I am not able to defend myself has compounded this stress. It is not possible for me to sufficiently defend my position and the false nature of these statements in public, nor with employers, family and friends, once they have been made, are on record, and are reported in the media.

Thus, these allegations made under Parliamentary Privilege, which have no substance in truth, have long term implications and cause damage to my reputation and welfare. Without any public statement to the contrary due to my obligations under Section 21 of the Act to which the IG ADF Inquiry is conducted, my personal and professional reputations have been adversely affected.

There are numerous other examples of parliamentarians offering an apology. I ask that a gracious Senator Roberts might consider doing the same. Especially where his allegations have been made without verification and rely on hearsay, incomplete evidence, and supposition; as is the case here.

As I understand the intent of Resolution 5, the intent of the Resolution was to offer a right of reply to persons adversely affected by being named under Parliamentary Privilege. Further, it serves to guard against the possibility that Senators may abuse the absolute immunity that attaches to their speech without persons affected being able to exercise legal rights that may be available including for defamation.

Accordingly, I seek that the matter be referred to the Senate Privileges Committee for its consideration in accordance with Resolution 5.