Complete Blog

This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.

The questions about Ray Griggs continue

Posted by on 2:33 pm in Defence, Featured | 5 comments

The questions about Ray Griggs continue

Yesterday Roman Quaedvlieg was sacked as the Australian Border Force (ABF) Commissioner.

The statement outlining the reasons for his dismissal listed a number of factors, including that Quaedvlieg ‘acted to modify policies’ to ‘advantage, at least in substantive part, a particular candidate for ABF employment’.

That ‘candidate’ just happened to be his girlfriend, hence the angst, investigations and loss of a $600,000 plus job.

This statement will not just be interesting reading for Quaedvlieg, but also for the Senior Sirs at the Australian Defence Force.

There is a similar scandal burning furiously within the bowels of Russell Offices.

And the questions and heat are now turning towards the Vice Chief of Defence Force, Ray Griggs.

Last night, Griggs strode onto a stage at the Australian Command and Staff College and addressed the best and brightest up-and-coming officers in the Australian Defence Force.

Griggs has trodden this path since 2015. It is familiar territory for him, although it has not always been comfortable.

Three years ago his address came as rumours swept through Canberra that Griggs was having an affair with a far junior naval officer. Defence policy at the time clearly prohibited sexual relations in the command chain. Many attending Griggs’ presentation held the view that every Defence member, apart from the Chief of Defence Force, was subordinate to him.

So he was questioned about his personal circumstances.

Those attending that brief came away with the very strong impression that the Vice Chief of Defence Force had given the green light to sexual relationships within the command chain.

In fact, that is exactly what he has done.

Whatever happens with Ray’s future, he will forever be remembered as the man who changed Defence policy to make it lawful and acceptable for an admiral to run off with a sailor’s wife.

He has done this in two ways.

Firstly, he ran off with a sailor’s wife.

And, secondly, he has put his signature to policy changes that not only make this acceptable, but that also protect such relationships under the guise of ‘anti-discrimination’ measures.

In the space of four years, the Australian Defence Force has gone from an organisation that prohibited sexual relationships within the command chain due to their ability to impact on command, morale and discipline to one that shields them.

And these changes have been wrought by the man who just so happened to be in a relationship with a junior officer. That’s why those words in the statement outlining Quaedvlieg’s sacking, ‘acted to modify policies’, may soon be felt inside Defence.

Up until November last year, Defence Instruction (General) 35-3 Personnel – Management and reporting unacceptable behaviour stated this:

A relationship which involves sexual relations or private intimacy, such as between husband

and wife, life partners, boyfriend/girlfriend etc, where a superior and subordinate command or management relationship exists, is considered to be inappropriate in the workplace.

On 24 November 2017, this policy was cancelled and replaced with a new one, Interim Defence Instruction Personnel 35-3 Required behaviour in Defence.

It removes all references prohibiting sexual relationships within the command chain.

Instead, the policy dictates that the definitions of unacceptable behaviour are detailed in a second document, Complaints and alternative resolutions manual. This document also fails to prohibit sexual relations in the command chain. However, it does contain this statement:

It is unlawful to treat a person less favourably at work because of a person’s:

iii. marital or relationship status;

With the stroke of a pen, Griggs ended the prohibition on sexual relationships between subordinates and commanders and instead made it unlawful to treat a person less favourably because of their relationship status.

You can see Griggs’ signature on the front page of the new policy document below:

New DI(G) 35-3

This, seemingly, will be news for the Chief of Defence Force, Mark Binskin. Last month he told Senate Estimates that relationships within the command chain were prohibited:

Senator Patrick: …Regarding relationships between senior officers and junior officers, on a ship or on a shore establishment, CDF, what are the rules in relation to a relationship between a senior officer and someone that’s within their command?

Air Chief Marshal Binskin: There are policies in place, and I won’t go through all of the policies. But, basically, if there’s someone in your command chain, then the policies are quite strong in those particular areas. I think that’s where you’re going.

Senator PATRICK: Yes. In principle, how is that normally handled?

Air Chief Marshal Binskin: I’ll get you the—

Senator PATRICK: There’s a DI(G) PERS on it or something, isn’t there?

Air Chief Marshal Binskin: Yes, there is, and I don’t have the policy and the PERS in front of me. I’ll get the personnel folk back to take you through it. But, in general terms, there are policies in place in regard to people in a command chain. You don’t want to have, in a squadron or on a ship or in a unit, a relationship there between a subordinate and a senior person. I won’t even say the commander, but I would just say in that command chain

At the time the Chief of Defence Force spoke those words it had been 96 days since the policies he referred to had been cancelled by his 2IC.

Of course, Senate Estimates was also told that a number of investigations into Griggs had cleared him of any wrong doing. But Senate Estimates was not told what the terms of reference for those investigations were or who was called as a witness. Furthermore, even though the legislation surrounding such inquiries requires Defence to compile an annual report, I can find no such report anywhere.

The investigations into Quaedvlieg uncovered more than 14,000 emails and text messages between him and his girlfriend. This investigation had teeth and could go digging for proof of a conflict of interest. We have no way of knowing whether any of the investigations into Ray Griggs went into this level of detail. In fact, according to media reports, it appears likely that he was simply asked if his relationship started while he was Chief of Navy and he said no. Ray’s word was then accepted over that of his ex-wife, despite the poetic evidence to the contrary.

And this raises questions because of what we do know.

We do know that Ray Griggs’ newest and fourth wife, Chloe, was promoted rapidly (being elevated twice in two years and three months). We also know that Navy policy stipulates that it takes four years, at a very minimum, for promotion from Lieutenant Commander to Commander, something that Chloe, according to her by line in the Navy newspaper, achieved in the vicinity of 18 months.

It also seems that a new position was created which allowed her to move from a Reserve contract into full time role.

And now we know that Ray has changed Defence policy in such a way as to seemingly protect his own relationship under anti-discrimination measures.

In these circumstances, one can only expect penetrating scrutiny of Griggs in the weeks ahead. The removal of Roman Quaedvlieg will only intensify the requirement for this.

Which brings us to accusations of hypocrisy.

The Australian Financial Review’s Laura Tingle noted today that:

It may be pertinent that Griggs has done much of the running on the Defence Force’s inclusion and diversity policies: such as allowing serving personnel to march in uniform in the Sydney Mardi Gras – not a favourite with many in the military echelon.

She then went on to speculate that this, rather than Griggs’ behaviour, was behind the scrutiny of this affair:

So many people with potential agendas. So many potential conflicts of interest which may, or may not, have coloured the way the controversy has played out.

It would be no more than a short-term controversy, stoked by some salacious detail, if there were not some bigger picture issues involved.

And it prompted this from Mike Carlton:

Strangely, Mike Carlton also had this to say about Barnaby Joyce:

There is no doubt that Griggs is a politically-correct loser. He set up Mona Shindy and gave the go ahead to her official Islamic Navy Twitter account that trashed the apolitical standing of the Australian Defence Force. He also enthusiastically champions uniformed participation in the Mardi Gras which does the same and is set for the same fall. And he’s backed Defence-funded sex change operations. This has angered many, as has Griggs’ example. But it’s the impression of weasel words, trickery and jobbery and the oafish sense of entitlement that his supporters like Mike Carlton should be worried about.

As I’ve said in the past, Griggs has not shown the same type of hypocrisy as Barnaby Joyce. Joyce failed to live up to high standards, whereas it’s hard to see that Griggs has any at all. But it appears that because Griggs is the headline act in the ‘cultural change’ programs underway inside Defence some in the media believe he should not be subject to the same scrutiny over his affairs as others.

It shows that when it comes to hypocrisy, the ‘progressives’ take the cake. They don’t believe in equality at all but in blatant double standards that protect their own.

And that shoe will fit until the following questions are answered in relation to Ray Griggs. They were certainly the type of questions asked of Roman Quaedvlieg but we don’t even know if they have been put to the Vice Chief of Defence Force:

  • Has Chloe Griggs ever worked for Ray Griggs prior to his time as Chief of Navy?
  • If so, was the relationship entirely professional?
  • Who promoted Chloe Griggs to Lieutenant Commander and when?
  • Who promoted Chloe Griggs to Commander and when?
  • Did Chloe Griggs’ promotions comply with all requirements of naval policy?
  • Did Chloe Griggs complete all courses required for these promotions?
  • What role did Ray Griggs have in these promotions?
  • Has Ray Griggs ever given Chloe any awards or commendations?
  • What role did Ray Griggs have in establishing new full time positions within the Navy for public affairs officers?
  • Did Chloe Griggs obtain one of those jobs and by what process?
  • When did the relationship between Ray Griggs and Chloe begin?
  • Has there been any examination of the phone and email records between Ray Griggs and Chloe that may shed light on this question?
  • Has there been any examination of the Defence travel records of Ray Griggs and Chloe that may shed light on this question?
  • What role did Chloe have during Ray Griggs’ time as Chief of Navy?
  • What assignments did Ray Griggs give to Chloe during this time and were they justified?
  • Why was Ray Griggs meeting Chloe in public parks?
  • Did Ray Griggs inform the Australian Government Vetting Security Agency of his relationships and their changes?
  • Has Ray Griggs been involved in any other relationships that may impact his security clearances and have they been reported to the Australian Government Vetting Security Agency?
  • Has Ray Griggs engaged in sexual relationships with other naval personnel and did they comply with Defence policies?
  • Why did Ray Griggs remove the prohibition on sexual relationships between commanders and subordinates?
  • Was the Chief of Defence Force briefed about this policy change?
  • Did Ray Griggs inappropriately use Defence resources or personnel in relation to the breakdown of his marriage with his third wife?
  • What public funds have been used to pay for travel and accommodation costs of Ray and Chloe Griggs?
  • Have Ray or Chloe Griggs used their position or power to threaten or silence others from raising concerns about this affair?
  • What role or influence has Chloe Griggs, a senior public affairs officer, had in relation to Defence’s official media responses to questions about this affair?
  • Does Ray Griggs’ behaviour accord with the requirement of the Chief of Navy or Vice Chief of Defence Force to maintain morale and discipline within the Australian Defence Force?
  • Was Chloe’s ex-husband, a senior sailor in the Navy, ever asked to provide evidence to any inquiry into Ray Griggs’ relationship with Chloe?

If you can assist in answering any of those questions, please contact me.

Ray Griggs might have changed Defence policy regarding relationships. But the policy regarding conflict of interest still stands. And it requires Defence to act transparently even in relation to perceived conflicts of interest.

So far, it seems no one within the senior leadership group can be accused of doing that. Meanwhile, the Minister for the Politically-Correct Defence Force remains silent. And Defence remains hiding behind a number of investigations that it won’t even release to the public – even though the legislation empowering these inquiries enables them to be made public…

Transparency by secrecy

Posted by on 4:18 pm in Defence, Featured | 3 comments

Transparency by secrecy

Well done world. Basically, you’ve stuffed it up royally.

In the good old days the ‘bonk ban’ was self-imposed outside marriage and no self-respecting PM would generate headlines about such things.

Now we have jettisoned self-control and replaced it with ‘professional’ ‘workplace culture’ that allows a free for all. So long as the required forms are filled out.

We’ve substituted the shackles of personal morality for the creepy oversight of Big Brother. I’m not sure it’s an improvement. If there’s one thing that will kill the moment for everyone it’s bringing the bureaucracy into the bedroom.

That, I think it is safe to say, will always ruin a happy ending.

But first we need a quick recap of how we got here.

According to popular history, the ‘Divine Right of Head Honchos’ to sleep with your wife led to revolution, the overthrow of said Head Honchos and a world of freedom and sunlit open plains of plenty.

But according to real history, we have ‘progressed’ to the point where the Head Honcho can sleep with your wife and you have to suck it up because a form was lodged with the HR Department. And also, it seems, because in the interest of transparency a secret investigation conducted by those of a lower rank who questioned others of a lower rank came back with a finding of nothing to see here (including the actual investigation report, what it investigated and who was called as a witness).

Unsurprisingly, this leaves everyone unsatisfied and unsure of whether they want more. Or less.

There is no better example than that which gracefully spread itself across the front page of The Australian today.

For those who don’t know (and it seems that the vast majority of people working inside the Australian Defence Force do), the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, the impressive sounding Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, AO, CSC, RAN, is now married to Commander Chloe Griggs (nee Wootten).

The word on the grapevine is that this is Ray’s fourth attempt at ‘until death do us part’. I haven’t seen the certificates to prove it but, if true, I think Ray will either get there or die trying. One wag recently quipped that, despite Ray’s joyful approval of uniformed participation in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, it is proof of the good admiral’s commitment to heterosexual marriage.

Eyebrow-raising as this aspect of the story may be, it is not the reason it has been rumbling around for some time. The cause of concern are allegations that Ray had a conflict of interest, in that his wife-to-be, Chloe, was promoted rapidly and then moved into a full-time Navy role that Ray just happened to create in his last moments as Chief of Navy. And that all of this occurred about the same time as the new love was blossoming and Chloe was doing PR projects for the Navy’s boss.

As was stated in Senate Estimates, two investigations have cleared Ray. But it is not known what they investigated or cleared him of because the Chief of Defence Force has also refused to release them.

The other issue is the fact that the Admiral’s new wife was previously married to a sailor and was still legally tied to him when their engagement was announced. That’s always a bit of a morale killer.

No matter how many investigations give this behaviour the green light, sailors are unlikely to be happy that they now have a new occupational hazard: admirals disappearing into the night with the mother of their children.

Basically, the floodgates at R1 (the building where Head Honchos work in Canberra) have held back this yarn for a while, although the seething, bubbling waters behind them were always audible. But in recent weeks those gates have simply crumbled and details have issued forth.

I lodged an FOI request a few weeks ago. Then last week The Australian ran the first article, the issue hit Senate Estimates and I published the seemingly rapid promotion timeline of Chloe Griggs, which was available for all to see because her name and rank is plastered all over the Navy newspaper and website.

Throughout it all, the phone has been running hot.

It is important to note where the bureaucracy fits into all of this.

Defence lawful general orders and policies prohibit sexual relationships within the chain of command. You can find that ‘well duh’ requirement spelled out in paragraph 32 of Annex B to DI(G) PERS 35–3 Management and reporting of unacceptable behaviour.

I can’t help but notice that this document also fingers Defence leaders with the responsibility of maintaining acceptable behaviour and effective relationships within Defence workplace. On a wild assumption, it can be guessed that the Vice Chief of Defence Force falls into the category of ‘leader’. Strangely, I think a reasonable person would conclude that him starting a sexual relationship with a sailor’s wife is not the preferred way of maintaining ‘effective relationships’ within the Navy, even if there is no other conflict of interest.

Defence lawful general orders and policies also require the transparent management of workplace conflicts of interest (including sexual conflicts) in DI(G) PERS 25–6 Conflicts of interest and declarations of interests.

This document requires Defence members to disclose even perceived conflicts of interest, act transparently and to take reasonable steps to restrict the extent that private interests could compromise, or be seen to compromise, impartiality.

It also prohibits Defence members from improperly using their authority, status or access to information for their own personal gain, or for the gain of relatives and friends (with benefits). It specifically states that it is also prohibited to behave in a manner that could be construed as favouritism, bias or coercion.

Importantly, at the very beginning of this document words like ‘integrity’, ‘transparency’, ‘honestly’ and ‘ethically’ are bandied about with gay abandon. It even starts with the phrase ‘public confidence’.

Yet somehow we’ve arrived at the situation where this relationship, declared to the bureaucracy and seemingly given the seal of approval by two Defence investigations, has become front page news precisely because of a lack of public confidence in the transparency of Defence and the integrity of those involved.

There are only three possible reasons for this.

The failure either results from the brain-thumping stupidity of the decision to prevent the policy intent of transparency by withholding the investigations from the public and even other Defence members who are abuzz because of what they perceive as a clear conflict of interest. If that is the case, the Griggs’ are left to suffer because the bureaucracy has attempted to do the impossible: provide transparency with secrecy. And the Defence rumour-mill has been left to run up to warp speed as a result. That cannot be deemed a good outcome.

Or the failure results from the fact that shoving off the morality of the Church and replacing it with the morality of the state was always going to result in the bedroom becoming a public space. If that’s the case, the Griggs’ are suffering from a combination of their own actions and the inability of Big Brother to impose morality by paperwork. Welcome to the age of the newspaper confessional – it’s one that was never even fitted with a seal.

Or the failure results from hopelessly compromised investigations. Rather than douse the fire completely, it’s possible that they’ve simply smothered it partially and sent smoke signals high into the sky.

If we take the word of Ray Griggs’ ex-wife, Kerrie, this situation is probably a result of failure three. She claims Ray hatched a three step-plan to make his new relationship with a very recent former subordinate work. Ex-wives are probably not impartial when it comes to their former husbands.

Yet, according to The Australian, Defence investigators strangely accepted the existence of this plan (which she says was outlined to her in October 2014 and required her to ‘keep up appearances’ until Chloe was able to get rid of her husband). However, somehow this evidence resulted in the bizarre conclusion that the man who liked to plan was not planning anything three months earlier when he was actually working with Chloe.

If we take Ray Griggs’ word, it’s probably a bit of failure one and two. According to The Australian, he claims that his relationship with Chloe began in October 2014, coincidentally three months after his tenure as Chief of Navy ended and therefore when Chloe was outside his direct command chain.

According to this story, it was just one of those things where Chloe happened to be in the right place at the right time: doing Navy PR for Griggs while he was Chief of Navy got her noticed for her excellent work and it is a sheer matter of coincidence that she happened to fall for him around the same time she also managed to land the job that he paved the way for – it’s just a matter of fortunate irony that all this occurred a mere 90 days after they worked together and when Ray was definitely not interested in her.

Coincidences do happen and it is possible that two separate Defence investigations just happened to stumble upon one.

But I do know a little about Defence investigations, having been subject to them myself. They are very particular about what they investigate which Defence then uses to arrive at all sorts of weird and wonderful conclusions about other things. For instance, Defence decided that because two investigations into me did not find any wrong doing on the part of my commanding officer, there was no reason to investigate a complaint I had lodged about him.

This was even though the investigations into me were, how do I put this, well, nothing more than investigations into me. They did not examine the actions of my boss. So it is not surprising that they made no findings against him. And even though these investigations also cleared me, I was still sacked. At the very least, I guess that’s proof that having two investigations clear you does not mean you should keep your job. And if that goes for a Major Nobody, it should also go for the Head Honchos.

I’m yet to understand the logic of the investigatory process into me which does make it entirely possible that it will also be impossible to understand the logic of the investigations into the Vice Chief of Defence Force. However, if they were made public and there really was nothing to see, it is hard to form a conclusion other than that they would blow the smoke of this affair away.

But keeping them secret will not have the same effect.

And there is one more thing.

We know from The Australian today that Ray Griggs was a witness to the investigation. We also know that his ex-wife, Kerrie Griggs, provided evidence that his relationship with Chloe started while he was Chief of Navy – evidence that Ray has denied and which the investigators apparently decided not to accept.

We can assume that Chloe was also questioned about this relationship timeline. Given that Defence policy requires Defence members not to accept any benefit (such as a job) where a reasonable person may view such acceptance as a conflict of interest, it would also seem reasonable to conclude that an investigation into a seeming conflict of interest between Ray and Chloe would ask her for a statement.

But we do not know whether Chloe’s husband, a sailor in the Navy, was allowed to provide any evidence to this inquiry.

Maybe he was. Maybe he provided the evidence that allowed the investigators to determine that the relationship did coincidentally happen after Griggs moved into the VCDF role and when all the wheels that led to Chloe’s new job and promotion had been innocently put in motion.

But we just don’t know.

Chloe’s ex-husband has not spoken and Defence will not tell anyone if he was a witness to the investigations into this embarrassing scandal.

One can only wonder why…

The military art of evading questions

Posted by on 7:40 pm in Defence, Featured, Values | 11 comments

The military art of evading questions

The Vice Chief of Defence Force, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, has an interesting history.

He has been recognised by DEFGLIS as an ‘LGBT Champion’.

He gives up his busy time as 2IC of the Australian Defence Force to ‘Wear it Purple’.

He appointed Mona Shindy to be the Navy’s Islamic Advisor and allowed the hijab to become part of the uniform of the Royal Australian Navy.

Ray Griggs Mona Shindy

Ray Griggs poses with Mona Shindy before she was announced as the Telstra Businesswoman of the Year in 2015. Ray Grigg’s future wife, Chloe Wootten, was promoted rapidly and authored the article that went with this picture.

And he’s defended the more than $1 million spent by Defence on transgender surgeries and medications.

So with Griggs’ interesting background it was also interesting to read an article in The Australian this week that led to some rather interesting questions about Griggs in Senate Estimates yesterday.

The Australian’s story began with these lines:

Defence is refusing to make public a 271-page investigative report examining events associated with a change in the marital status of Australia’s second highest ranked military officer.

Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs, the Deputy Chief of Defence, separated from his wife Kerrie several years ago and in 2016 married ­fellow naval officer Chloe Wootten. Commander Wootten is the current director of communications and media for the navy. In 2014 she was a lieutenant commander and in 2015 she was promoted to commander, according to navy publications.

The Australian understands that after their separation, Vice-­Admiral Griggs’ former wife Kerrie was asked to leave navy supplied accommodation in Canberra.

That last sentence is interesting too, especially as I forgot to mention that Griggs is also an ambassador for the pro-abortion-for-any-reason-until-birth lobby group, White Ribbon. And the White Ribbon website states that this is a sign of abuse:

‘locking a woman out of the house or in the house’

I’m guessing that the ex-Mrs Griggs was probably happy to see the back of her virtue-signalling husband but, unlike the White Ribbon definitions, do not infer abuse in any way. Rather, I do believe we need a good rethink about the dollar-filled trucks that are sent by the government to organisations like White Ribbon courtesy of blokes like Griggs.

According to its ridiculous definitions, almost everything can be classified as violence against women, including buying the wrong sort of ice-cream. However, this definition of including everything does have its limits. Aborting a child just because she happens to be female is not an act of violence against women according to White Ribbon.

Anyway, Defence claims that Griggs has done nothing wrong. Indeed, the Chief of Defence Force, Air Chief Marshall Mark Binskin, told Senate Estimates that two separate inquiries were held into Griggs and both made no adverse findings.

You can watch the evidence presented below (apologies for the technical glitches in it):

However, it is not clear what these inquiries were asked to investigate and they seemingly focused on the issue of Ray Griggs’ housing entitlements after his marriage breakdown.

The Chief of Defence Force refused to answer any questions about whether Ray Griggs’ relationship with his new wife (and current Director of Communications and Media for the Navy) began while he was Chief of Navy.

The question is an important operational one and goes to the heart of confidence in the Chief of Navy’s office and its ability to effectively ensure our nation’s maritime security.

In the military, command is important and sexual relations between commanders and other Defence members (especially those in the chain of command) can (and often do) lead to tensions and conflict of interest. That’s why the Australian Defence Force has policies to prevent relationships within the command chain, as detailed briefly before Senate Estimates by the Chief of Defence Force.

One can see why questions about this relationship are being asked. And one can also wonder why they are not being answered transparently. And that’s a pity because if nothing wrong has been done it’s likely that this approach will give a far different impression.

Between 4 July 2013 and 19 November 2015, Chloe Griggs (nee Wootten) authored at least six stories for the Navy that featured her future husband prominently. There is no information publicly available about whether Griggs, who was Chief of Navy from June 2011 until June 2014, gave any direction in relation to these stories or what role Chloe Griggs may have had in other publicity provided by the Navy’s media division for Ray Griggs. No one will answer any questions about the command chain, the relationship timeline or what measures were undertaken to prevent a conflict of interest in these circumstances.

I should point out, however, that it is not uncommon for one Defence ‘partner’ to use Defence resources to promote the other ‘partner’. Let me know if you can find the example in the 14 March 2013 edition of the RAAF newspaper.

But one of Grigg’s last acts as Chief of Navy was to post this to Twitter:

And there was this earlier exchange in 2013 about the International Fleet Review:

Chloe & Ray Griggs

Chat discussion between Ray Griggs and the then Chloe Wootten on a fundraising page for ‘Ocsober’.

Furthermore, the Navy newspaper detailed that Chloe was a Lieutenant as at 13 October 2011:

13 October 2011 Chloe Griggs

Screenshot taken from the 13 October 2011 Navy newspaper showing the then Chloe Wootten held the rank of Lieutenant.

By 19 July 2012, Chloe was promoted to Lieutenant Commander:

19 July 2012 Chloe Griggs

Screenshot taken from the 19 July 2012 Navy newspaper showing the then Chloe Wootten held the rank of Lieutenant Commander.

And then she appears as a Commander on 13 January 2014:

13 January 2014 Chloe Griggs

Screenshot taken of the Navy website showing that Chloe Griggs held the rank of Commander on 13 January 2014.

That’s two promotions in two years and three months, equating to a pay rise of about $40,000 per year.

There is no information available as to who promoted Chloe or for what reasons. I make no inferences about these promotions and remind readers that two investigations have made no adverse findings.

But I was advised by an administrator of the Royal Australian Navy’s official Facebook page today that:

For promotion to Commander, four years seniority as a Lieutenant Commander is required.

Talented high-flyers might be promoted to Commander after four years. The average time is usually far longer, as demonstrated by the many biographies of Commanders on the Royal Australian Navy website where it often took a decade to achieve promotion.

Given the publicly available information in the Navy’s own newspaper and Defence’s refusal to answer questions, I would not expect this issue to go away.

And I will raise this point of comparison between Ray Griggs and Barnaby Joyce.

The former Deputy PM was rightly criticised as being hypocritical for publicly defending marriage while walking away from his own.

But the virtue signallers of the Left have no leg to stand on. They are not disappointed that those high standards were not kept. Rather they rejoice in the face of failure. There is nothing virtuous about that position at all.

Ray Griggs, on the other hand, is an LGBT champion. But are his actions hypocritical?

I think not. He has chosen to wallow in a sea without standards. His earlier marriage breakdown is not a fall from high standards but fits right in with the monogamy-is-an-optional-extra and marriage-equality-is-the-first-step-to-the-abolition-of-marriage-altogether crowd that he chooses to champion…


Here are some selected tweets from the official Twitter account of Vice Admiral Ray Griggs. It’s always interesting when an admiral speaks…

Given all all of this, one can hardly be surprised that both Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds (who wants front-line female infantry and women in NRL teams) and Labor Senator Kimberly Kitching were quite happy to see questions in Senate estimates shut down. Ray Griggs is the kind of admiral that has leftists salivating at the mouth.

Chloe & Ray Griggs Wedding

Ray and Chloe Griggs on their wedding day in 2016. Source: Facebook.


Eyes on Sydney: Drag Queens for Kids

Posted by on 4:27 pm in Featured, Values | 7 comments

Eyes on Sydney: Drag Queens for Kids

Eyes on Sydney has an update following the passage of ‘homosexual marriage laws’.

The Woolloomooloo Bay Hotel has its priorities right (or it has simply surrendered):

Woolloomooloo Hotel

Woolloomooloo Hotel 2

I labelled it ‘Australian National Flag’ with some artistic flair. It more closely resembles a loosely interwoven collection of ragged dental floss. But let’s be charitable and assume that the fraying tatters at the top of this pole used to be part of our flag.

And let’s be less charitable about what we think of the Woolloomooloo Bay Hotel.

Meanwhile, the Mardi Gras is holding a ‘Family Fun Day’ on Saturday, complete with family-friendly Drag Queens to entertain the kids:

Family Fun Day MG

For those of you who don’t know who Coco Jumbo is (and I didn’t until Eyes on Sydney reported in today), this picture is on his Instagram page:

Coco Jumbo

I’m still not sure which one is ‘Coco’.

And here is Hannah Conda in action two days ago:

Life is like a machine at the gym. Do it in heels or not at all.

A post shared by Hannah Conda (@hannahconda1307) on

Unfortunately, this event has now been ‘sold out’. I’m not sure what is worse: exposing children to this depravity or knowing that there are ‘parents’ out there who will actually pay to do it…

Doctors turning away Veterans: Contact Magazine

Posted by on 3:32 pm in Defence, Featured | 4 comments

Doctors turning away Veterans: Contact Magazine

Contact Magazine ran a very disturbing article a few days ago.

It seems that the Department of Veterans Affairs has not increased the fees it will pay doctors to treat veterans since 2012. Consequently, veterans are being turned away by doctors:

The AMA’s bottom line was that doctors were not obliged to accept DVA cards for payment – and, in fact, the AMA said they had long been aware that an ever-increasing number of medical-service providers were refusing DVA cards for payment.

Warwick Hough, Director of the AMA’s General Practice and Workplace Policy Department said the problem was that DVA’s fee schedule had been frozen since 2012, but even before that, DVA generally paid a lower fee for services than a medical practitioner would otherwise charge…

…The doctor who refused to take me on as a DVA patient phoned me to directly explain his position.

He said his current policy was not to accept any new DVA patients where a DVA card was the preferred payment method, simply because DVA did not pay a fair and reasonable fee.

He also said that he was legally barred from charging veteran clients a ‘gap’ under a DVA-payment arrangement, even if they were willing.

Full article here.

If true, this is outrageous.

Veterans who serve this nation are entitled to have their health care costs met by the government for injuries that they have sustained in uniform. It appears, for many years, this has not been occurring, particularly where mental health treatment is required.

Making the news (for all the wrong reasons)

Posted by on 3:08 pm in Defence, Featured | Comments Off on Making the news (for all the wrong reasons)

Making the news (for all the wrong reasons)

Linda Reynolds is finally in the newspapers.

A week ago the Liberal Senator declared on Twitter that females were good enough to be selected on merit to play in professional sporting competitions like the AFL and NRL:

And now her ‘idea’ is in the newspapers.

None other than Latika Bourke has ‘exclusively’ covered the comments – even though this webpage covered about them here over on 13 February. This is how Latika’s story started:

A rising star inside the Turnbull government has called for a national debate on introducing mixed gender competitions to professional sports, asking why women are segregated from competing against men in codes like the AFL, NRL and rugby union.

Linda Reynolds, who was Australia’s first female brigadier in the Army Reserves before joining Parliament, told Fairfax Media that sport should follow in the footsteps of the Australian Army, which has a target of lifting the proportion of women in its ranks to 25 per cent within five years.

By the way, does anyone remember this?

The Matildas are strongly fancied to give Australia’s its best ever shot at a medal in the sport of football at the Rio Olympics in August. Perhaps they should be grateful there will be no under-16s boys’ teams in their pool.

In a friendly match against the Newcastle Jets under-16 boys team on Wednesday, the Matildas were humbled 7-0. That’s right, the team ranked fifth in FIFA’s women’s rankings were roughed up by a bunch of lads barely old enough to shave.

Out of interest, although Linda Reynolds claims that women meet the same standards as men in the Australian Army, they do not. See the Basic Fitness Test requirements below:


Strangely enough, Linda Reynolds has been rather silent on that point. I think she is too busy rolling her eyes:

It should noted that this interview was broadcast by Sky News a full two weeks before Latika Bourke’s ‘exclusive’.

However, one thing is clear. If the NRL followed in the Army’s footsteps, females would playing – but only because the rules of the games were changed.

Front rowers would be off on the sidelines giving interviews about ‘White Ribbon Day’, while females would applauded for scoring tries at the 30m line (the actual try line would be adjusted for ‘gender meritocracy’). And the referee would be in constant communication with the Australian Human Rights Commission to determine if any tackles constituted sexual harassment…

…and the answer would be yes. All of them. Because #MeToo.

Who didn’t see this coming?

Posted by on 4:43 pm in Featured, Values | 13 comments

Who didn’t see this coming?

In case you haven’t noticed, in the post-marriage equality world the war is raging on.

Just take the fact that the AFL women’s comp is now staging a ‘Pride Game’.

Ironically by 2020 it will probably be played entirely by men.

It was launched a few days ago with these words:

You know we had a massive break through with marriage equality but we sorta can’t stop there. We just have to keep pushing…

Pushing for what?

Well that would be the total eradication of traditional Christian-based belief. The ‘Yes’ campaign’s submission for to the Religious Freedom Review is described this way by Fairfax media:

Religious schools should be forced to hire LGBTI teachers and all church exemptions to anti-discrimination law should be abolished, the “yes” campaign has told Philip Ruddock’s religious freedom inquiry.

And this is what the actual submission recommends:

Religious exemptions in state and federal anti-discrimination law should be repealed. In particular, the exemptions should not allow discrimination in publicly funded delivery of goods and services, and particularly those services targeting vulnerable population groups…

The pro-homosexual marriage lobby groups haven’t shut down. They are only just gearing up. In their sights are parents, Catholic schools and ordinary Australians who may dare to disagree on marriage.

And if you didn’t see this coming then you have had your head in the sand…

Air Force Chief says gender doesn’t matter as he oversees female-only recruitment program

Posted by on 4:02 pm in Defence, Featured | 4 comments

Air Force Chief says gender doesn’t matter as he oversees female-only recruitment program

Air Marshall Leo Davies is the Chief of Air Force. He’s the smiley bloke below:

Leo Davies

And he’s quoted on the Air Force webpage devoted to diversity and other inanity as saying this:

We want them to know that their height, religious background, skin colour, gender or specialisation doesn’t matter. Everyone gets a fair go at a rewarding career.

It all sounds rather nice. But it, to be polite, is a load of codswallop and he knows it.

When it comes to height, the RAAF does have restrictions:

Height & BMI

Screenshot of the Defence Recruiting webpage detailing height restrictions for RAAF pilots.

So regardless of what the Chief of Air Force said about height not mattering, it does.

And when it comes to gender, it also has restrictions:

Female graduate program

Screenshot of Defence Recruiting webpage detailing that the Graduate Pilot Scheme is only open to females.

So, again, regardless of what the Chief of Air Force said about gender not mattering, it does. If you are of the female persuasion, the RAAF will allow you to join via its Graduate Pilot Scheme. But if you are challenged in the area of being female, well then it’s stiff bickies.

All of this just goes to show that the language of diversity is entirely meaningless. It makes people, like the bloke running our Air Force, look stupid.

Furthermore, this stupidity is increased because one of these restrictions makes sense. And one does not.

If you are too big to fit into the cockpit of an F-18 then there’s not really much point or purpose in having the RAAF train you to fly an F-18. Hence the reasons there are height and weight restrictions for those seeking to become a pilot in the Air Force.

I don’t know why the Chief of Air Force feels the necessity to pretend that these restrictions don’t exist but, then again, I am not into this whole diversity thing.

I can only put it down to the possibility that in this brave new world of diversity people somehow feel so embarrassed by saying no that they choose to say yes instead.

However, despite the fact that the Chief of Air Force seems hesitant to acknowledge that there are, in fact, height restrictions for the RAAF, these restrictions make sense.

The same cannot be said about the gender restrictions for the ‘Graduate Pilot Scheme’.

A cockpit of an F-18 (or any other plane) does not restrict females in general and nor does it restrict males. Although it must be noted (and the Australian Human Rights Commission has) that a greater proportion of males have the height and weight characteristics required to fly these things than females. According to the Human Rights Commission it is a sign of entrenched discrimination against women by those who design combat aircraft.

But given that fact, if there was going to be a gender-based restriction on pilot entry programs it would actually make sense for the RAAF to prefer males.

But the RAAF has done the opposite. It’s lost its mind over females which seems to make it a particularly masculine organisation, even if it is doing its best to pretend otherwise.

Given all of this, it is entirely unsurprising that the Australian Human Rights Commission has latched onto the Graduate Pilot Scheme and called for the RAAF to, firstly, continue the program and, secondly, monitor its effectiveness.

Normally I would have thought that you would assess effectiveness before deciding to continue with a program. But, then again, I don’t work at the Human Rights Commission either so am really in no place to make an informed judgement on its upside down and back-to-front thought processes.

However, it should be noted that this program was born from an understanding that females training to become pilots ‘hated’ uniforms and ‘hated’ the idea of providing a fixed period of service to the RAAF (known as a ROSO – Return of Service Obligation). And they also still wouldn’t join even if they could train without signing up to either of those things.

So the RAAF decided to chip in to pay for their degrees. And pay them as well.

That seems like a real winner and a grand total of three women signed up for the package in 2014/15. I’m not sure how many have signed up since. It might be seven…

This is what female pilots told the Australian Human Rights Commission about this program:

With the graduate pilot scheme…there were two…hurdles for women in military aviation. One is military and one is aviation. So rather than take girls off the street who then had to battle military and aviation we just targeted one group…women who were already studying aviation, have an established support network and…they have that confidence.

So we looked at them and went well what would it take for you to join and one was they hated the ROSO and they hated the uniform. So if we get rid of the ROSO, the uniform might be a bit harder. So that’s how we did it but they still weren’t wanting to apply so then you had to incentivise it which is how we got the funding for Air Force to then give them back, when they graduate as a military pilot they then get all their tuition fees and university accredited and reimbursed, so that was that in a nutshell.

And that, right there, is how government decisions to spend millions of your dollars are made.

The RAAF ‘Graduate Pilot Program’ has been designed to chase people who don’t like the uniform, don’t like the service conditions and are still only interested in insignificant numbers even if you pay them a king’s ransom.

And they must be female because even though the Chief of Air Force says gender doesn’t matter, it does if you’re into ticking diversity boxes instead of winning wars.

To cap it all off, male pilots who are required to sign on for ten years of their life after they complete their training are labelled by the Human Rights Commission as ‘trouble makers’ for failing to understand that women need special measures for ‘equality’:

Some male pilot trainees reported that the initiative provided an unfair advantage to women pilots…One way that Air Force leaders could communicate measures such as the reduced ROSO, is in terms that explain substantive equality. Women are disadvantaged unless there are special measures that give them time out of the workforce to have a family.

Gender doesn’t matter in the RAAF? Pull the other one Leo Davies. After all, you’re the one obeying orders from the Human Rights Commission to give people special deals based entirely on the fact that they are not male…

Defence unleashes the rainbow jihad

Posted by on 7:28 pm in Defence, Featured, General, Values | 5 comments

Defence unleashes the rainbow jihad

In times of political slavery, these should be words to send shivers down the spine:

…this will be a…very powerful symbol showing LGBTI people who is friendly in their area.

Why? Well if displaying the symbol shows you are friendly, failing to display it shows that you are not.

These words have just been sent out from Defence’s Diversity HQ in Canberra to soldiers, sailors and airmen across the nation.

The rainbow jihad has been unleashed. Just like Communist Russia, Defence now has its battalion of Political Commissars monitoring military personnel for their allegiance to the cause. They’re known as ‘Diversity and Inclusion Advisors’.

Every Defence member who submits and ‘volunteers’  to be an LGBTI ally will be publicly recorded. And every member who fails to volunteer will also be identified and outed.

In fact, the Defence Corporate Directory, which is like the military’s ‘White Pages’ will visibly show who has scribbled their signature on the LGBTI Ally form. And who has not.

Just like this:

LGBT ally

A screenshot of the Defence Corporate Directory showing that everyone who signs up as an ‘LGBTI Ally’ will have a rainbow symbol placed against their name.

‘Homosexual marriage’ has only just been legalised and already we’ve moved from the acceptance phase to enforcement.

It’s no longer enough just to vote ‘yes’ in the privacy of the ballot box. You now have to act ‘yes’ at work. And also at home.

For those who don’t remember, the Federal Court ruled that it was entirely lawful for Defence to sack me for expressing private views contrary to Defence’s cultural change agenda. And that means anyone else can be as well.

That means you need to be an LGBTI Ally around your kitchen table too.

And it has not taken very long to reach this point.

The Human Rights Commissioner, Edward Santow, gave an ominous warning during last year’s marriage debate that this is where we were always headed.

As votes were being cast, he stood up in front of a room full of gay and lesbian officers and decried the ‘pockets of resistance’ that stood in their way. He also noted that ‘cultural change’ was an ongoing project.

Very senior members of the Defence Force were present, giving his statement official endorsement.

It was a clear sign: Defence members with conservative views on marriage, family and morality would no longer be tolerated.

Less than six months later, the process for the purge has been put in place.

Every officer receives an annual report. They are graded for their acceptance of diversity and cultural change.

There is no better way of receiving a glowing report than by demonstrating that you have signed up for the rainbow tick of approval.

And if you don’t have one? Well, it’s not compulsory (yet). Although it’s not a good look either. But I’m sure it won’t make much difference at all.

You just won’t be as competitive for promotion.

That’s today.

Tomorrow, the Political Commissars may not be so lenient. You might need to forget promotion and consider whether you want to sign up just so you can keep the job.

Don’t expect to see many officers reach above the rank of major from now on unless they too are prepared to join in the rainbow jihad…

Read the entire call for Defence members to ‘volunteer’ as LGBTI allies here:


This information, and plenty more including information that Defence:

  • is discriminating against male recruits,
  • is training ‘genderless’ officer cadets,
  • was planning to change chaplains’ hat badges to appease Muslims,
  • ran indoctrination training to promote Islam to junior officers,
  • published an article promoting taxpayer-funded prostitutes and sex toys, and
  • is handing out halal-certified rations to soldiers

has come to light thanks to brave men and women in the Australian Defence Force who have shown, to paraphrase the former Chief of Army’s words, that they will not accept walking past low standards.

I thank them for their service and their courage.

These stories are causing great discomfort in Canberra. Politicians and senior officers are squirming. Mostly it is behind closed doors but they have been forced onto the back foot in public too.

Please keep this up – I have no doubt that truth and pressure will see logic win the day.

Thank you also to those of you who have donated to keep this website going. Without your generosity, none of this would be possible.

Equal opportunity insanity (or did you hear the one about the pregnant male footy player?)

Posted by on 5:32 pm in Featured, Values | 4 comments

Equal opportunity insanity (or did you hear the one about the pregnant male footy player?)

There’s nothing like a half-pregnant man to raise eyebrows.

Especially playing at the footy.

And who knows? We may just be there.

After all, there are blokes playing in the women’s sides and they have a whole sports maternity leave thing going on and Medicare statistics helpfully show that in the 2017 financial year 37 dudes delivered a baby ‘by any means’ (mostly in New South Wales where strange things are normal).

16519 description

Screenshot of Medicare item number 16519: Management of labour and birth by any means.

16519 table

Screenshot of Medicare statistics for item number 16519 – showing that while the vast majority of those who received treatment for the management of labor, 37 were also male.

One of them is listed as being between 45 and 54 years of age. So someone has a grandfather for a mother.

Thankfully, other statistics make slightly more sense. A solitary fella from Western Australia gave birth by caesarean section which, upon pondering these things, does seem like the appropriate medical response for a bloke with a bun in his oven.

So we seem destined to be politely raising our eyebrows at the footy from now on and thinking back fondly to the days when we only had to raise our eyebrows at less exotic things.

Like Barnaby’s affair.

It merely resulted in a woman expecting a baby and is really so last century. Perhaps if it was Barnaby with a belly the Nationals could have positioned themselves to take on the growing Green vote…

Of course, say what you will about Barnaby (and I certainly have here), he at least deserves credit for accepting that he is actually the man in this business. Because the truth is a man can’t give birth at all and not even ‘by any means’ either.

All that has happened is that the mindless bureaucrat who is paid by you and me to record the number of Medicare obstetric procedures by gender got bored.

Or doesn’t know how to count.

Or doesn’t know what a man is.

I’m guessing it’s all three of those things which is why, to be fair to Medicare, its statistics come with a disclaimer: it takes no responsibility for the accuracy, quality or suitability of its data and recommends that we mugs exercise care and diligence when it comes to interpretation of this information.

But it still says 37 dudes gave birth.

And that has my eyebrows raised too, which brings us back to the footy.

There may not (yet) be half-pregnant full forwards. But there are now blokes playing at full forward in the women’s league who demand that we recognise they may identify as pregnant at a moment’s notice.

This should make people like Senator Linda Reynolds ecstatic. After all, only yesterday she was off on her high horse about how elite sports like the AFL should ‘desegregate’ and let the talent rise to the top.

But really, as a feminist, she should have known better.

It’s only a matter of time before blokes win the Brownlow medal. And that other blokes in skirts win whatever equivalent medal they have for the competition formerly known as the AFL women’s league…


By the way, this whole transgender thing is making everyone look stupid – especially those who are trying to run with it.

The AFL, in its wisdom, has accepted that a man can be a woman. But it won’t accept that a man can be a woman in the elite AFL women’s league. However, they can be a woman in other female leagues. And all of this is apparently because a man has an unfair advantage in the top female league but is fine and dandy to go against the less talented gals.

And all of this is going to ‘transition’ again next year, when we will probably find that a man can be a woman on Tuesday and Thursday night training but not at pie nights and not if they play in the midfield (except if they wear a skirt) and only if they are under 6 foot like other women (noting that no woman is like any other women).

Talk about trying to be half-pregnant and eating your cake too.

I’ll leave it to none other than the bouncing ‘Hannah Mouncey’ to flounce on in and explain it all (including the part about how unfairly he has been treated by those who took so long to grant him permission to play against the girls):


I really don’t know why actual women (I guess they would be the ‘people with uteruses’ as so lovingly described by Children by Choice) don’t kick up more of a stink about the way ‘transgender women’ carry on.

As an aside please don’t fret that Children by Choice excludes transgender women either – it helpfully explains to them (and, I think worryingly, the rest of us) that:

Regardless of how people identify themselves or their relationships, pregnancy can still be possible.

I’m not sure whether that is good news or bad news…

Anyway, as far as I understand this whole shebang, all transgender women were ‘assigned’ the male gender at birth by the Official Gender Assigner (I have not been able to find a Medicare number for this procedure but I’m still looking). Which means none of them have the foggiest idea what it’s like to actually be a woman. They can only do their best to ‘project’ femininity when they live as their ‘authentic self’ (I love this phrase – there’s nothing so like ‘authenticness’ as pretending to be something entirely different to what you actually are).

And every ‘transgender woman’ I’ve ever listened to acts like women are nothing more than a walking hissy fit.

I don’t know what is worse.

The perception that ‘transgender women’ have of women. Or that fact that feminists (who spend their lives supposedly championing the cause of real women) accept this poor-form pantomime.

Actually, on second thoughts it all makes sense now. Feminists are walking hissy fits…

Pin It on Pinterest


Share This

Share this post with your friends!