Media Room: Defence Speech

MEDIA BRIEFING

ACM ANGUS HOUSTON, CHIEF DEFENCE FORCE

FINDINGS OF COSSON REPORT AND

SECDET SHOOTING INCIDENT IN BAGHDAD

1330 FRIDAY 7 JULY 2006

 

ANGUS HOUSTON:      Everybody ready to proceed? Well, good afternoon and thank you for coming across this afternoon. I am here today to announce the completion of an investigation into the repatriation of the body of Private Jake Kovco, and to provide an update on the investigation into the security detachment patrol contact on the 21st of June.

 

I would like to begin with a statement about the repatriation, then take questions, then I will make a statement about the security detachment incident and again I'll take questions. Of course in that second lot you might want to extend the questioning a little bit further onto other matters if you so desire.

The investigation into the mishandling of repatriation of the body of Private Jake Kovco has been completed. This investigation conducted by Brigadier Liz Cosson and independent medical specialist Professor Donald Sheldon found the failure to repatriate the body of Private Kovco was a direct result of two fundamental errors in the repatriation process. Firstly, the wrong body was produced by the civilian mortuary staff for identification. And secondly, the body produced was incorrectly identified as being Private Kovco. Additionally the investigation found weaknesses in defence policy and procedures for mortuary affairs, which created conditions conducive to failure.

As chief of the Defence Force my focus is now on improving our repatriation procedures in order to ensure this error doesn't occur again. Therefore I have accepted all twenty eight recommendations in the report and I am firmly committed to their implementation.

While awaiting the outcome of this investigation I directed immediate changes to the ADF's repatriation process, some of which were also recommended by Brigadier Cosson in her report. These changes included that wherever possible, firstly bodies of ADF personnel will be carried on military aircraft. Secondly, at least two ADF personnel will accompany a body being returned to Australia, and thirdly defence will avoid using non military mortuaries in the Middle East.

A copy of the Cosson report has been provided to the Kovco family and the board of inquiry investigating the circumstances surrounding the death and repatriation of Private Kovco. The board will now consider the evidence and may make recommendations as part of their deliberations. Any further repatriation recommendations made by the board will be considered at that time.

I am confident that the recommendations made by Brigadier Cosson will significantly improve our repatriation process to ensure that an event like this never happens again. In the tragic even that a member of our Defence Force dies on operations I want to be sure that they will be brought home with dignity and respect, which of course is what they deserve. What happened to Private Jake Kovco was unacceptable, and anyone who is willing to risk their life for their nation deserves better treatment than what Jake Kovco received. Thank you, I am now prepared to take questions.

 

QUESTION:                   Can I ask, why was Jake Kovco's body ever handed to civilian contractors in the first place? And was it because as has been suggested by some of Private Kovco's own mates in his platoon that this was the cheaper option?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      Cheapness had nothing to do with it. It was all about getting the quickest way home. Our priority was to get the body back as quickly as possible, to satisfy the requirements of the family. And I guess in doing that the quickest way to go was to use the civilian aircraft, which necessitated going through a civilian mortuary. What we will do in the future is we will use military mortuaries in the Middle East, and of course we will use a military aircraft, a military charter aircraft. That's the way we will do it in the future.

QUESTION:                   If I can just ask one further question? Private Kovco's Platoon Sergeant, I'm told accompanied his body to the private mortuary in Kuwait. I'm told the report says that his role was to stay with his body until it arrived safely home. It's clear that he didn't do that and fulfil that task. What disciplinary action if any has there been for Private Kovco's Platoon Sergeant?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      I think the Platoon Sergeant was put into a very difficult set of circumstances, and if we had our time over again we would probably use a different individual than the Platoon Sergeant. The Platoon Sergeant, as the report brings out, was very fatigued, he was obviously very close to the individual who had passed away. And I don't think we did the right thing by appointing him to that position. Consequent on that and a number of other factors that are brought out in the report Brigadier Cosson recommends that no action be taken against that individual. And if I could just make an appeal, please do not use his name in public, I think he's probably suffered enough, and we'd appreciate if you could respect that.

QUESTION:                   Hayden Cooper, ABC News. Two parts to the question. Firstly, you've already announced several changes, several weeks ago, which you went over then. What other changes will be made? And secondly, what disciplinary action has been taken against Brigadier Liz Cosson for leaving this report in the Melbourne Airport?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      Well, firstly, those 28 recommendation – the 28 recommendations address a large number of procedural changes, the need to update our doctrine, update our procedures, make sure that we've got a watertight and very robust system to repatriate bodies from a place like the Middle East. That' it in a nutshell.

In terms of Brigadier Cosson – Brigadier Cosson's circumstances, I appointed her, I had a quick assessment done to have a look at what happened. She provided a statement, that statement indicated that she took full responsibility for the loss of the disk. She was very apologetic and very contrite about losing the disk, and I have now referred her case to a senior officer in the Army who will consider her circumstances and decide what further action needs to be taken.

QUESTION:                   Laurel Irving from Channel Ten. I'm just wondering, you said that the steps taken in Iraq were because of time. If we implement these recommendations to make sure the military is involved wherever possible does that mean now a significant delay in the repatriation of bodies to make sure that those protocols are addressed?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      The report discusses how long it takes the Americans. The Americans have a standard, a performance indicator. They work on eight days to repatriate a body. In our particular circumstances had we been successful the first time around we would have got Private Kovco's body back in four days. As it was his body arrived in six days so we will take more time next time, because we will be using military mortuaries, and we will also be using military aircraft or chartered aircraft, ADF chartered aircraft. So, yes it probably will take a little bit longer next time but it will be a very robust process. And of course those 28 recommendations have been put into an implementation plan, and that is under way as we speak. So I'm very committed to getting the system squared away so that this never happens again.

QUESTION:                   Air Chief Marshal Houston, Cynthia Banham from The Sydney Morning Herald. What do we now know as a result of the findings of the report led to the wrong body being produced? Has liability been found against the civilian contractors and will the ADF be taking any action against them as a result of what has happened?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      The civilian contractor was acting as a freight forwarder. That's what the report establishes. There were, I guess deficiencies in terms of what we expected the contractor to do. In other words we hadn't made it clear exactly what we wanted the contractor to do. And as a consequence the contractor acted as a freight forwarder rather than somebody or an organisation that was involved in the identification process. So, if we look at it in those terms I think it's highly unlikely that we will be doing anything other than improving our system and making sure that we've got a much tighter contract, and we have much tighter oversight of what the contractor might do.

QUESTION:                   Air Chief Marshal, Alison Carabine Southern Cross Broadcasting. Just to clarify, was it Private Kovco's Platoon Sergeant who wrongly identified Private Kovco in the mortuary, and if so is it still a mystery why that could have happened?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      Yes, it was the Platoon Sergeant who identified the body. It's not really a mystery, I mean the circumstances I've gone into in some detail in the report. And the mortuary was a very busy place, the lighting was very poor, and I think there was an expectation on the part of the Platoon Sergeant that the body being presented was that of Private Kovco.  I am probably getting into too much detail but there were circumstances regarding the state of the bodies where there could be a misunderstanding.

QUESTION:                   Air Chief Marshal, Mark Dodd from The Australian. Can Brigadier Cosson's career recover from losing the CD?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      Brigadier Cosson made a simple human mistake. I think every one of us in our lives has been I suppose responsible for some sort of loss. She is a very efficient lady, a very professional officer, a very good officer, and as far as this is concerned her – what happens to her is being considered by a senior Army officer, and that will be handled in the normal military way. You won't hear about what happens. But in terms of her future career I am totally confident that she has got a career in the Army. I see this as a human error. I see it as something she has apologised for? She's really upset about the fact that this happened and we move on from there.

QUESTION:                   Air Chief Marshal, Ben Doherty from The Age. Have you made any recommendation to the Army that Brigadier Cosson be disciplined?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      No, that would be most inappropriate. I was the appointing officer. I have referred the case to the Army, and the Army will appoint an officer to have a look at that. He will be obviously a Major General because he needs to be more senior than Brigadier Cosson and he will deal with that, and I have had no contact with that officer whatsoever, nor will I.

I think what we might do now if you like – okay one more question and then we'll move onto the next statement.

QUESTION:                   I just want to clear something up. You've said twice you will only be using military mortuaries. The statement given to us says where possible.

ANGUS HOUSTON:      Right, what I said was in the Middle East, okay. In the Middle East area of operations we will use military mortuaries. Clearly – one of the things about this is that we've had people die around the world. We've had people die in Europe, in America, in lots of places. We have ADF people all over the world. In some of those circumstances, we will use civilian contract arrangements and also civilian aircraft, because we don't have a military presence, for example, in North America, or indeed in Europe.

But what we will do is ensure that in those circumstances, that the body that has been repatriated will have two people accompany it, and we'll make damn sure that we get the body back in a very efficient and effective way.

Perhaps if I now move onto the next statement. And by the way, if I've missed anybody, we can pick up questions on what I've just talked about later on. Let me now update you on the progress of the investigation into the incident involving members of our security detachment in Baghdad, on the 21st of June.

The Commander of our forces deployed in the Middle East area of operations, Brigadier Moon, has completed a routine investigation. This investigation found that our personnel acted in accordance with their rules of engagement. The details of the incident are as follows.

A civilian vehicle broke through a cordon, which had been established by Iraqi authorities, to allow a number of Australian light armoured vehicles, ASLAV's, to enter a roadway without interference from traffic. This civilian vehicle continued towards the ASLAV's, despite clear warnings in English and Arabic displayed on the rear of the ASLAV's, and repeated visual signals and shouted verbal warnings from both the Australian personnel and the Iraqi facility protective services providing a cordon.

Despite these warnings, the civilian vehicle moved alongside one of the ASLAV's. Believing the threat of an attack was imminent, Australian personnel fired at it until it no longer posed a threat. I deeply regret the injury and loss of life from this incident. However, on the basis of this investigation, I am satisfied that the actions of the security detachment personnel were warranted under the circumstances.

The vehicle was being driven in a manner consistent with the tactics, techniques and procedures employed by insurgents conducting vehicle borne improvised explosive devices, device attacks.

This incident will be discussed with Iraqi officials, including those from the Ministry of Trade, to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to avoid a similar incident in the future.

I would just like to add some further information arising out of this incident. We are providing medical treatment to an Iraqi bystander who was injured during the incident, possibly by Australian fire. This is consistent with our practice for providing humanitarian assistance to Iraqis caught up in an Australian operation. I would like to emphasise that due to security implications with this person and their family, as well as our respect for their privacy, I won't be going into any more detail about this assistance at this time.

I'll now take questions on this or anything else you want to raise.

QUESTION:         Angus, just on that point about the vehicle, it pulled up alongside the ASLAV. Presumably then, had it been an explosive carrying vehicle, that it would have been able to actually achieve its mission by being so close to that vehicle. Are you concerned that the rules of engagement are robust enough?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      It's true to say that they should have perhaps engaged it sooner than they did. They were in a very difficult set of circumstances, and as it came ever faster down the road, they then became very concerned about it. And of course, they had gone through the whole escalated warning process. So I guess they were giving it the benefit of the doubt, right to the last possible moment.

It's a very difficult set of circumstances for these people in these circumstances.

QUESTION:                   Just one more on the previous one. I'm sorry I didn't get it in. The report into the loss of the body – the full report's been given to the family. There's an executive summary and the recommendations on the website. Can we get a hold of the full report? Is that a public document, and if not, why not?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      No, the full report has been provided to the board of inquiry and to the two coroners. There are sanitised reports that have been provided to the family. And in terms of public access to the, if you like, the sanitised report, that will not be available until the board of inquiry has completed its deliberations.

I feel it was very important though, to put out this summary, the findings and the recommendations at this time. And in terms of the findings and the recommendations, we have withheld absolutely nothing. So the essence of what happened here is there for you. Obviously the complete report contains attachments which are full of information that really will never go on the public record.

QUESTION:                   Air Chief Marshal, just following on from Ian's question, in what way was the report sanitised for the family? And also, you've mentioned in your statement that there were weaknesses in ADF policy and procedures, which allowed these mistakes to occur. What were those weaknesses?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      Yes, when I say the sanitised report – sanitised to protect people's privacy. We don't name individuals in the report, and that's why I say – I know, unfortunately that was leaked early in the piece. But I really would appreciate if you could respect that individual's privacy. He's gone through a hell of a lot, because he feels really bad about what happened.

In terms of the failures, well it was a breakdown in the chain of custody, and whilst the chain of custody worked well in the American system, as soon as we passed the body into the civilian system, we lost control of the body. Our doctrine is not consistent. We do have some doctrine, but a lot of it's outdated. And I would submit that a lot of it's probably outdated, because fortunately we haven't had much practice in mortuary affairs for a long, long time.

This experience has, I suppose, brought us back to reality, and what we must do now is update all of our policy, all of our procedures and all of our doctrine to ensure that we never have an error like this occur again.

QUESTION:                   Hi, Air Chief Marshal – Sarah Smiles from The Age. I have two questions. I was wondering whether the investigation determined why the Iraqi vehicle had crashed through the cordon, and also whether compensation will be given – any compensation to the family of the victim?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      Yeah, the Iraqi vehicle weaved its way – there were two columns of vehicles waiting. This vehicle weaved its way through the middle of those standing vehicles, and then went through the cordon. In fact, one of the Iraqi protected people had jumped out of the way, and the vehicle swerved around them and then proceeded in a fairly erratic manner towards the ASLAV's.

QUESTION:                   For any particular reason?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      We don't know. We just don't know. It seemed to – this is the problem, because usually in these circumstances everybody complies with the requirements of those that have set up the cordons, and they were Iraqis that had set up the cordons. So somebody breaking through the cordon. It is an unusual occurrence and, of course, our people right away thought this was a threat developing.

QUESTION:                   Compensation?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      Compensation – we have a very well established procedure, whereby we can make payments to people who suffer as a consequence of actions by Australian soldiers in Baghdad. We're not liable for compensation in the pure sense of the word. What we do is use act of grace payments to pay for injuries or damage, that might have happened as a consequence of our soldiers' actions.

QUESTION:                   Richard Davis from SBS TV News. Back on the Kovco incident, you mentioned that civilian mortuaries will be used in some parts of the world, if necessary. How can you guarantee that this incident won't be repeated?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      What I'm saying is that there are circumstances, say in North America, where somebody's on leave, they fall down a mountain or something like that, where we would bring them back through a suitable procedure. It wouldn't be practical in those circumstances to use a repatriation system such as I've just detailed to you. But wherever we've got military operations going on, we will, to the maximum extent possible, bring our people back in a military aircraft.

When it's happened around the region in recent times, we've always generally brought our people back on C130 aircraft. That's easy, because usually we're only talking about a flight of six hours. But if you're coming from the Middle East, you're talking about a flying time of say 16, 17 hours from Baghdad, and it probably necessitates overnight stops on the way, perhaps.

If you're coming from somewhere like North America or Europe, we're talking about a very different set of circumstances, and with the sort of aircraft that we have available to us at the moment, if they're all in Australia, a C130 takes probably three to four days to get to London, and then turn it around and bring it back, it's going to be a mammoth undertaking.

What we'd probably do in those circumstances, is bring the individual's body back on a Qantas aircraft. They're the sort of circumstances where we might default to a civil option, but we won't be doing it in circumstances such as we've got in the Middle East at the moment.

QUESTION:                   But again, what guarantee is there though, that this mistake won't happen again, because you will be using civilian aircraft, civilian mortuary.

ANGUS HOUSTON:      It won't happen again. It won't happen again because in those circumstances – the problem is we don't – if we have an individual on leave in the UK or in North America, we don't have any military mortuaries to go to. We have to use the established system. And I don't believe the Americans even have military mortuaries in North America. Their military mortuaries are in the areas of operations, where you might expect casualties. So it's a different set of circumstances.

And that's the only qualifier I'll put on it. Where we're conducting operations, we are going to, wherever possible, use military aircraft.

QUESTION:                   Air Chief Marshal, Daniel Street again from Channel Nine. Some would say the loss of Private Kovco's body is perhaps one of the biggest bungles for the Defence Force. Can I just confirm that no heads will roll, that there has been no punishment, no disciplinary action for anyone involved, in particular Private Kovco's Platoon Sergeant?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      I'm not giving any guarantees at this stage at all. What I will say is that we have had some – I recounted to you earlier on, the principal reasons why we had a mix-up with the bodies. First of all, the civilian mortuary did not present the right body, and obviously in those circumstances no ADF people were involved. And secondly, the process of identification broke down because it wasn't thorough enough.

And it relied on visual identification, in circumstances which were pretty difficult – dim light and so on. So I think it's highly unlikely that there will be any action taken against the Platoon Sergeant. I say this – I don't intend to take any action against him. But, of course, the board of inquiry is also having a look at the circumstances, and that's why we're providing a copy of Brigadier Cosson’s report to the board of inquiry.

QUESTION:                   Max Blenkin, Australian Associated Press. Just with regard to the SECDET incident. Just how many rounds were fired, from what weapons and what ranges?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      I don't have the number of rounds, Max. The weapons that were used, they had very heavy weapons available to them. They didn't use those. They used very light weapons. But in terms of how many rounds, I haven't quite – I haven't got the detail on that.

QUESTION:                   It was a lot though, wasn't it?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      No, I think they were short bursts of the lightest weapons that they had. I can get back to you on that if you like. Thank you, very much.

QUESTION:                   Have you spoken to family about the report, and if so, are they satisfied?

ANGUS HOUSTON:      The Kovco family were briefed and provided with a copy of the report earlier today, and I understand – I haven't had any feedback other than they were happy to get the report. Thank you, very much.