Assistant defence minister Andrew Hastie has told a court that preserving the Special Air Service regiment requires “coming clean” on the mistakes of the past 15 years, as he declared he was no longer proud of Victorian Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith.
Hastie, a former captain in the SAS, told the federal court on Friday he had once revered Roberts-Smith – who is suing three newspapers for defamation – but now pitied him.
Asked if he hated his former comrade, Hastie told the court: “I don’t dislike Mr Roberts-Smith at all. I pity Mr Roberts-Smith. I pity this whole process. I don’t want to be here.”
Hastie was subpoenaed to give evidence by the newspapers defending the defamation action. Roberts-Smith alleges their media reports portrayed him as committing war crimes, including murder, as well as acts of bullying.
The newspapers are pleading a defence of truth. Roberts-Smith denies all wrongdoing.
In wide-ranging, and at times emotional evidence, Hastie said on Friday confronting “issues” within the SAS was necessary to preserve the regiment, which he said was a vital part of Australia’s national security apparatus.
“I have a love for the regiment, I have a love for the institution. My ambition has been to preserve the SAS regiment and the way we do that is by coming clean on some of the mistakes of the last 15 years.”
He repeatedly said he was a reluctant witness testifying under subpoena and was not motivated by antipathy towards Roberts-Smith.
“Before I gave evidence here, I rang my father and I asked him to pray with me. And he prayed for Mr Roberts-Smith as well.”
But, Hastie told the court, having “started from a very high regard” for the decorated veteran, “I am no longer proud of Mr Roberts-Smith”.
Hastie told the court of the wider war crimes allegations levelled against Australian soldiers: “This is terrible for our country, terrible for the SAS, terrible for our national security. No one wants to see this but until we deal with it, we can’t move forward.”
Hastie, who served five years as a captain in the SAS between 2010 and 2015, said it was a “fairly well-established rumour” within the regiment that Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed “PUC” (a person under control in military parlance) off a cliff in Afghanistan.
Hastie said he had heard the “Darwan allegation” from “multiple people”.
“Soldiers are oral historians – things get passed around by word of mouth.”
It is alleged by the newspapers that Roberts-Smith kicked an unarmed, handcuffed prisoner in the chest, sending him falling off a cliff, during an SAS operation in Darwan in 2012. It is alleged the man was later shot on Roberts-Smith’s orders.
Roberts-Smith has consistently denied the allegation and said the man killed at Darwan was a spotter, discovered hiding in a cornfield, who was engaged legally and found with a radio on him. He was killed in accordance with the laws of war, Roberts-Smith said in his evidence last year.
Hastie was on a mission in October 2012 to Syahchow which the newspapers allege was the site of a “blooding” incident – the practice where a new soldier is initiated into the regiment by being ordered to register their first “kill” on operation, allegedly often of an unarmed prisoner. In their defence claim, the newspapers allege Roberts-Smith ordered another soldier, Person 66, to kill a captive, unarmed Afghan man who’d been taken out into a field.
Hastie, on the ground during that mission, said he remembered Roberts-Smith’s patrol using an interpreter to “tactically question” a number of Afghans up against a wall.
Moving to a different part of the compound, Hastie said he heard the words “shots fired” and “two Ekia” – enemy killed in action – over the troops’ radio, but that he didn’t hear any shots.
He said he later saw Person 66 in the compound at Syahchow “standing slightly off from the rest of the patrol looking nervous”.
He testified he also saw Roberts-Smith again on the mission.
“Mr Roberts-Smith walked past me … and he looked me in the eye and said ‘Just a couple more dead cunts’,” Hastie said.
Hastie was present when Roberts-Smith gave an oral debrief of the mission to senior SAS command. He said Roberts-Smith’s version represented an “alternate universe”.
“The reality described by Mr Roberts-Smith was different to the one in actuality.”
Hastie said that his own recollection being on the ground – along with information from troop headquarters that observed the mission, radio reports of “shots fired” and “enemy killed in action”, along with his discussions with other soldiers, and reports of another soldier, known as Person 66 “getting a kill” on operation – led him to question the lawfulness of what happened during the Syahchow mission.
Roberts-Smith has denied the Syahchow allegation. Asked directly during his evidence last year if he had ordered Person 66 to execute a prisoner, Roberts-Smith said: “I did not.” Person 66 is due to give evidence after Hastie.
Hastie told the court Friday he was sufficiently troubled by the “mosaic” of information and reports he had been receiving that he spoke with senior command at the SAS about reports of alleged unlawful behaviour. “I had a gut feeling something wasn’t right.”
And, he said, before he led soldiers on deployment to Afghanistan in 2013, he spoke to his subordinates collectively, emphasising the need to obey the laws of war – “to fortify the adherence to ethical and lawful conduct”.
“We had a huddle and we made clear what was expected,” he told the court.
Hastie told the court he distinctly remembered an experienced non-commissioned officer in the SAS telling him of his command responsibilities: “Your job is not to get these guys to kill, but to restrain them.”
Hastie told the court he believed there needed to be “accountability” at all levels of the military.
Hastie said Australia’s prosecution of the war in Afghanistan was flawed and the restrictions imposed upon soldiers on the front line endangered Australian lives.
“Politicians were sending us over there … and it was bloody ridiculous some of the stuff they were asking us to do.”
Hastie said the military’s “catch and release” policy, whereby insurgents captured on operations were often freed after three days by Afghanistan’s judicial system, had “incentivised extrajudicial killing” by coalition troops.
“This system incentivises killing rather than capturing.”
Hastie said because of stipulations from Canberra, he was required to have 50% of the personnel on missions be from the Afghan army partner force. He said that meant he had to leave behind “medics and engineers” when commanding missions.
“So was I a little bit pissed off? Yeah, I was.”
Hastie remains in the witness box. The trial, before Justice Anthony Besanko, continues.
