Nine’s secret settlement analysed

Nine Network’s Secret Payment & Veteran Investigations: A Discussion with H Russell

Key Concepts:

• Defamation: The act of harming the reputation of another by making false statements. Both civil and criminal defamation are discussed.
• Freedom of the Press vs. Due Process: The tension between media freedom and the right of individuals to a fair legal process.
• War Crimes Allegations: Accusations of misconduct by Australian soldiers during deployment in Afghanistan.
• Royal Commission: A high-level public inquiry into a specific matter, in this case, the Bondi massacre and veteran suicide.
• Office of the Special Investigator (OSI): The government body established to investigate allegations of war crimes by Australian soldiers.
• Breitton Report: An initial report into allegations of misconduct by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan.

I. The Nine Network’s $700,000 Payment

The discussion centers around a $700,000 secret payment made by the Nine Network to a witness in a case involving Ben Robert Smith, a former soldier facing defamation claims. The payment was allegedly intended to silence the witness, who possessed information potentially damaging to Nine’s reporting. The core question raised is what this witness was prepared to reveal, given the substantial sum paid to maintain confidentiality for 50 years. H Russell highlights the irony of this expenditure, noting it nearly doubles the amount the ABC had to pay him following a failed defamation case against them. He questions what other behind-the-scenes tactics were employed to target Ben Robert Smith during the civil defamation proceedings.

II. Ethical Breaches by Journalists & Freedom of the Media

A key point of contention is the admission by Nick McKenzie, a Nine journalist, that he breached journalistic ethics by sharing Ben Robert Smith’s legal strategy. McKenzie stated, “I’ve just breached my ethics… doing that.” H Russell connects this ethical lapse to the broader context of the war crimes allegations, emphasizing that Ben Robert Smith has not been convicted of any crime, only lost a civil defamation case – a lower standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt” required in criminal court.

The conversation also touches upon the perceived double standard in how the media is treated versus veterans facing accusations. Veterans Affairs Minister Matt Kio reportedly dismissed concerns about due process for soldiers, citing the need to protect “freedom of media” for journalists like McKenzie and Chris Masters. Russell argues that this prioritizes media freedom over the fundamental right to due process for those who have served their country.

III. The Prolonged Investigation of Australian Soldiers

The discussion highlights the lengthy and unresolved nature of investigations into alleged war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. It’s noted that investigations have been ongoing for 7-10 years, beginning with the Breitton Report, with no conclusive results – one person charged, but no convictions. This is contrasted sharply with the expedited timeline of the Royal Commission into the Bondi massacre, which was given less than a year to report.

H Russell expresses “disgust” at this disparity, stating that Australian soldiers were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001 and are still being investigated decades later. He points out the government has spent “hundreds of millions of dollars” on the OSI with limited success. He argues that resources should be focused on tracking known terrorists, referencing the situation with ISIS brides being welcomed back into the country, rather than pursuing investigations against veterans.

IV. Government Priorities & Resource Allocation

H Russell criticizes the government’s allocation of resources, arguing that it prioritizes investigations into veterans over supporting them. He references the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which identified a need for increased support. He views the one-year cap on the Bondi Royal Commission as a “political play” designed to delay accountability and allow the government time to prepare its response. He states, “it’s shocking for me as a fifth generation veteran to see where our government is putting its priorities, investing its money, and pursuing these avenues as opposed to supporting our veterans.”

V. Notable Quotes

• H Russell: “We are targeting soldiers at home and their only defense is to take people to a civil defamation proceedings. And as a part of those proceedings, if you have enough money, you can throw $700,000 to silence a witness.”
• H Russell: “It’s shocking for me as a fifth generation veteran to see where our government is putting its priorities, investing its money, and pursuing these avenues as opposed to supporting our veterans.”
• Nick McKenzie: “I’ve just breached my ethics… doing that.” (referring to sharing Ben Robert Smith’s legal strategy)

VI. Technical Terms & Concepts

• Civil Defamation: A legal claim brought by an individual seeking damages for harm to their reputation caused by false statements.
• Criminal Defamation: A criminal offense involving the publication of false statements that harm another’s reputation.
• Standard of Proof: The level of evidence required to prove a case in court. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard in criminal cases, while a lower standard applies in civil cases.
• Royal Commission: A formal investigation with broad powers, typically established to investigate matters of public importance.
• Office of the Special Investigator (OSI): A dedicated unit within the Australian Federal Police tasked with investigating allegations of war crimes.

VII. Logical Connections

The conversation flows logically from the initial revelation of the Nine Network’s payment to a broader critique of the handling of war crimes allegations and the treatment of Australian veterans. The discussion of journalistic ethics is directly linked to the concerns about due process and the potential for media bias. The comparison between the Bondi Royal Commission and the ongoing investigations into veterans serves to highlight the perceived imbalance in government priorities.

VIII. Data & Statistics

• $700,000: The amount paid by the Nine Network to a witness.
• Hundreds of millions of dollars: The estimated amount spent by the government on the OSI.
• 7-10 years: The length of time investigations into alleged war crimes have been ongoing.
• One person charged, no convictions: The outcome of the OSI’s investigations to date.

IX. Synthesis/Conclusion

The discussion paints a critical picture of the handling of war crimes allegations and the treatment of Australian veterans. It raises serious questions about the ethical conduct of journalists, the fairness of the legal process, and the priorities of the Australian government. The central argument is that veterans are being subjected to prolonged and costly investigations without conclusive results, while the media appears to be afforded a degree of protection that undermines the principles of due process and fair reporting. The $700,000 payment by Nine Network is presented as a symptom of a larger problem – a willingness to prioritize reputation management over truth and justice.