Navy ‘sought to silence’ dissent on subs

REX Patrick is pursuing action after his naval training contract was cancelled.

Rex Patrick says has the Defence department cut his contract with them because he has been an outspoken public critic of defence policy.

THE nation’s military leaders profess to welcome public debate on Australia’s defence policy, but when a critical voice is heard from inside their own camp the reaction is very different.

The story of former navy submariner Rex Patrick gives an uncomfortable insight into how Defence tries to silence dissenting voices.

While Defence has no choice but to tolerate public criticism from journalists, academics or independent think tanks, the navy was not inclined to tolerate criticism from Patrick — who, although now a civilian, was contracted by the navy to provide submarine training and was therefore seen as an insider.

When Patrick started writing articles several years ago arguing that building new submarines in Australia was a waste of taxpayer money — a position strongly opposed by the navy — he found himself in the navy’s gun sights.

An internal email trail across two years obtained by Inquirer reveals that the navy plotted to sil­ence Patrick and strip him of his $90,000-a-year navy contract to give sonar and acoustic training to submariners.

Now Patrick no longer has a contract with the navy and is preparing legal action against it for allegedly threatening him to remain silent.

Defence denies any wrongdoing and says it has not renewed its contract with Patrick’s company, Acoustic Force, because it no longer needs the type of training he offers, not because of his public criticisms.

This curious tale began in 2009 when Patrick, who served as a sonar and combat system officer on the navy’s Oberon and Collins-class boats for 11 years until 1994, decided to enter the public debate on the question of the next generation of submarines.

“I did so because of the project’s importance to navy and because of the estimated $36 billion cost,” he says.

“It is my belief that such debates are valuable as they encourage the free trade in ideas.”

But Patrick’s ideas were not welcomed by the navy.

His argument was that the most cost-effective solution was for Australia to buy smaller, cheaper proven submarines off-the-shelf from Europe rather than build completely new submarines in Australia and risk a repeat of the expensive and trouble-plagued Collins-class experience.

It is a valid viewpoint, but a minority one, with both sides of politics and the navy strongly advocating that the future submarines be built in Australia.

Patrick wrote a series of articles for defence magazines and openly talked with defence journalists about his beliefs.

But what appears to have alarmed Defence most was that he caught the ear of the then opposition defence spokesman, now Defence Minister, David Johnston, who was so impressed that he suggested Patrick should join his staff if the Coalition won government.

The navy watched in dismay as Johnston in opposition stepped up his criticism of the Collins-class boats and refused to rule out Patrick’s notion of buying off-the-shelf submarines.

In June 2012, the commander of the submarine force, Captain Mark Potter, wrote to his security officer asking: “Can you do some digging for me (discreetly) — you will see below an email from Rex Patrick about his engagement with (Defence) and the fact he speaks to Sen Johnston as an ­‘adviser’. I want to know if there is a conflict of interest here — bottom line is that he goes out publicly and speaks about submarines and I want to be able to stop it but need to know either as a contractor or (as a reservist) whether he crosses the line.”

But, to the navy’s disappointment, the internal investigation into his contract found that “Mr Patrick has not breached any contracted clause or any Defence instruction concerning release of information or public comment and there appears no case to terminate Acoustic Force’s contract”.

If it could not cut his contract, the navy decided to try to muzzle Patrick by changing the nature of his contract.

In February last year, Commodore Michael Noonan wrote to Patrick saying: “I am concerned that your frequent public comments as a Defence contractor are impacting adversely on the navy’s reputation, our capability and your ability to fulfil the terms of your contract. In particular I believe the disparaging nature of your comments runs contrary to the spirit of your employment.”

Noonan sent a note stating the navy wanted Patrick to sign a clause preventing him from making public comment.

“If (this) agreement cannot be reached, I will consider the other options available to the navy in relation to the contract,” he wrote.

Patrick tells Inquirer: “There is no doubt that this letter was an attempt to coerce me into silence.”

He responded to the commodore’s letter by submitting a wide Freedom of Information request to try to find out what had been going on behind the scenes inside Defence.

It was immediately clear to the navy that this FoI probe would uncover the internal attempts to shut down Patrick’s commentary — which, if made public, would be an embarrassment.

On March 5, two days after Patrick lodged the FoI request, the navy initiated contact with him to arrange a meeting with Noonan in which the commodore abruptly agreed to withdraw his letter.

Two months later, on the eve of the release of the FoI documents to Patrick, the then chief of navy, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, met Patrick in Defence headquarters. At this meeting Griggs indicated that the navy now understood Patrick’s position.

“At that meeting he (Griggs) put the issue to bed, indicating that he now understood that I was acting in good faith,” Patrick recalls.

“That there was no requirement to accede to the navy’s request and that the contract would run its full course.”

The following month, the navy agreed to take up the option of another 12-month contract with Acoustic Force.

The issue then went quiet for almost a year, although Patrick continued to write critical articles and to be quoted in the media about the Collins-class submarines. But on May 22 this year Patrick was called to a meeting with Commander Darren Rushworth, who told him that his navy training contract would not be renewed when it expired on June 19.

The navy told Patrick it was going to save money by conducting its sonar and acoustic training in-house and that it would not be outsourcing that requirement to contractors any more.

Patrick says this decision was contrary to all the feedback he received — and which he has documented — about the value of his course to the navy

He is convinced that the decision is related to his previous battle with Defence, which he believes blackened his name with the top brass. Defence denies this. A Defence spokesman says Patrick’s contract was not renewed because of operational reasons.

“At present, (the) navy does not have a requirement for external acoustic training similar to that previously provided by Acoustic Force and does not anticipate tendering for the provision of such services from any Defence supplier,” the spokesman said.

But Patrick says he has been the victim of a campaign because he dared to speak his mind about defence policy.

“I believe the conduct of these senior RAN leaders is inappropriate and I have asked the Minister for Defence to review it,” he says.

“I believe that elements of the conduct of these senior RAN leaders may breach the criminal code and I have referred this to the AFP.”

Patrick says Defence needs to open its mind to more open and honest public debate and must not try to shut down the opinions of those who still have a relationship with the ADF.

“Governments must show strong grounds for interfering with free speech,” he says.

“Defence can and (does) reasonably prohibit discussion on classified matters or official information learned working within Defence. But a line needs to be drawn.”

“Firstly, debate on Defence procurement is invaluable to ­national security and the taxpayer. Secondly, freedom of expression and opinion is an important ­democratic pillar and one that Defence must respect, understanding that they actually bear arms to defend it.”