The Facts On HMAS Success
26 October 2009
Andrew Bolt's editorial concerning the investigation into misconduct claims on board HMAS Success (Navy credibility in the balance as three deny sex ledger claim – Friday 23 October 2009) is misleading, emotive and inaccurate. I believe it is important to remind the Australian public and Navy's people of the facts surrounding this case.
The administrative and disciplinary investigations into the issues associated with HMAS Success have yet to hand down their findings, but the allegations being investigated continue to cause Navy serious concern.
The Commanding Officer of HMAS Success was presented with sufficient information relating to alleged inappropriate behaviour to warrant him to initiate investigations in April 2009. A number of serious allegations had been raised by crew members. Given the nature of the allegations and in accordance with his obligations as the Commanding Officer, he had no option other than to act. He acted in a positive and forthright manner, landing four personnel during a visit to Singapore in early May. This action was taken to ensure the welfare and safety of his crew, whilst ensuring that subsequent inquiries would not be prejudiced and procedural fairness was afforded to all personnel involved. Appropriate support has been provided to HMAS Success ship's company throughout the investigation.
It is also important to note that the existence of a "sex ledger" was speculation generated by the media from late June 2009, well after the positive actions taken in HMAS Success. Navy made that point quite clear when responding to these media inquiries, advising that the veracity of such allegations was yet to be confirmed and that all issues raised were being considered in the investigations that were underway at the time.
Navy cannot operate as an effective fighting force, while also being a people focused organisation, unless each of our members is afforded procedural fairness and treated decently. The New Generation Navy reform program that I launched earlier this year is very clear on how I expect Navy people to be treated, with particular regard to respecting the contribution of every individual and promoting the wellbeing and development of Navy people. Notably, I require personnel in supervisory roles to lead by example on developing and perpetuating this culture in their units.
I am very proud of Navy's strong positive reputation in the community. The Australian people rightly expect Navy personnel to live by a higher standard. This is particularly relevant to those in positions of authority, who are obliged to ensure the highest standards of behaviour are maintained at all times by those who serve, whether on or off duty. Sometimes this is difficult but it is the way it must be.
R.H. Crane
Vice Admiral, RAN
Chief of Navy
