The arrest and charging of Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia's most decorated war hero, has ignited a fierce debate, revealing troubling instincts in the political sphere. Accusations of war crimes often bring out the worst in Australian politics, and this case is no exception, with reactions highlighting deep divisions over justice and accountability.
Presumption of Innocence and Legal Standards
In the minds of many Australians, the charging of Roberts-Smith offers a measure of comfort, particularly after the slow pace of investigations into alleged atrocities committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Roberts-Smith, of course, benefits from the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of our legal system, and has vigorously defended himself in civil proceedings.
Our criminal justice framework, with its established practices and precedents, is well-equipped to handle this matter, testing it against the highest standards of proof. This ensures a fair and thorough examination of the facts, upholding the integrity of the process.
Inappropriate Public Interventions
Since Roberts-Smith's arrest, however, there have been grotesque and entirely inappropriate interventions from some public figures, even before the case has properly begun. These individuals are wrong to excuse the alleged conduct, undermining the rule of law and the separation of powers.
For instance, Senator Pauline Hanson has pledged her steadfast support for Roberts-Smith in a move that seems bizarre and ill-considered. If Hanson fails to grasp the complexity of this issue, including the importance of legal standards, perhaps someone in her party should clarify it. Alternatively, this may be a cynical attempt to wrap herself in the flag and scavenge votes from the Liberal and National parties, rather than engaging with the serious legal implications.
Influential Voices and Their Impact
Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest person and a key conservative voice, has also expressed confusion over the arrest and prosecution, citing costs and impacts on Australian Defence Force morale. This perspective overlooks the critical need to maintain high standards within the ADF. Protecting our soldiers does not mean brushing aside or papering over alleged atrocities; it requires upholding the values that define our military's reputation.
Even former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has weighed in, praising special forces soldiers while seemingly shifting blame from individuals to systemic issues. Such comments risk diluting accountability and ignoring the personal responsibilities of soldiers under the law.
Military Integrity and Global Standards
As a former soldier, I understand why some in the community object to the treatment of highly decorated individuals like Roberts-Smith. The battlefield is perilous, decisions are made in seconds, and enemies may disregard the laws of war. However, Australia has long prided itself on the integrity of its armed forces, with the ADF enjoying a global reputation for discipline and humanity.
Rules of engagement and acceptable behaviour are ingrained in ADF members from the outset, contributing to its excellence in peacekeeping roles. Special forces applicants undergo rigorous selection processes, ensuring only the most proficient and grounded individuals are chosen. While these soldiers face the toughest tasks, they are also among the best trained and selected.
Upholding Accountability and Ethics
This pride in the ADF should not lead to excusing the inexcusable or immunising soldiers from their duties. As former defence chiefs have noted, the standard we walk past is the standard we accept. Ignoring credible allegations of war crimes sets a dangerous precedent, as seen in regimes like the United States, Israel, and Iran, where impunity can erode ethical foundations.
Most Australians would agree that we must hold ourselves to a higher standard, maintaining the rule of law as a honourable distinction from those we oppose in conflict. The soldier's job may be incomprehensible to outsiders, but legal accountability remains paramount.
Support for veterans and their families is available through resources like Open Arms and Safe Zone Support, ensuring those affected have access to help. This case serves as a stark reminder of the need to balance respect for service with unwavering commitment to justice and ethical conduct in all circumstances.
