The Claim
“Refused to pay compensation to a man whose family was accidentally killed by Australian air strikes. The department claims they were killed by something other than Australian bombing, even though the department did not read the defence report about Australian bombing in that area that day, and they did not provide any alternative explanation for the 35 deaths.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts in this claim are accurate, though the narrative is somewhat more complex than the claim suggests.
Incident and Deaths: On 13 June 2017, an Australian airstrike (or nearby coalition airstrikes) in Al Shafaar neighbourhood, Mosul, Iraq killed 35 family members from an extended family, including 14 children, 9 women, and 2 imams (religious leaders) [1]. A single family member survived.
ADF Acknowledgment: The Australian Defence Force acknowledged in January 2019 that "an Australian airstrike or nearby Coalition airstrikes in the Al Shafaar neighbourhood of Mosul on 13 June 2017 may have caused civilian casualties" [1]. The ADF assessed "between six and 18 civilians may have been" killed, though the family claims 35 deaths [1].
Compensation Denial: In December 2021, the Department of Finance denied an "act of grace payment" (discretionary government compensation for unintended consequences of government action) requested by the Iraqi man. The man requested payment in the "low hundreds of thousands of dollars" [1].
The Lack of ADF Report Access: The Guardian reports: "the delegate who made the decision not having access to an ADF report on whether one of its F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets was responsible for the airstrike" [1]. The Finance Department delegate "nonetheless accepted the ADF's advice that its investigation found there was no proof civilians were killed by an Australian airstrike" [1], despite not having read the actual investigation report.
No Alternative Explanation: The claim's statement that "they did not provide any alternative explanation for the 35 deaths" is accurate. The decision letter provides no explanation for how 35 people died if not from Australian bombing. Air Marshal Mel Hupfeld stated: "We do not definitively know how these people were killed" [2], but provided no alternative cause.
Missing Context
Timing and Attribution: The initial incident occurred on 13 June 2017. The ADF did not publicly acknowledge potential involvement until January 2019 (20 months later), after the matter was reported by Airwars [1]. By this time, establishing causation was difficult.
Coalition Attribution Complexity: This was not an isolated Australian airstrike. The ADF stated "an Australian airstrike or nearby Coalition airstrikes" caused casualties. Multiple nations' aircraft conducted strikes in the area on the same day. The U.S. Pentagon later assessed (in May 2020) that U.S. forces had likely killed 11 civilians in a separate engagement on the same street [1][2].
The ADF's uncertainty about attribution is not entirely unreasonable given the complex, fast-moving urban combat environment. Airwars noted that the Coalition's own coordinates for the strike were inaccurate by at least 531 meters compared to the actual strike location [2].
Act of Grace Payment Criteria: An "act of grace payment" is discretionary government compensation made "in special circumstances, including when a government entity has taken an action with an unintended result and no other compensation is available" [1]. The Australian legal standard requires establishing that:
- Australian government action caused the harm
- No other legal remedy exists
- Discretionary payment is warranted
The delegate's decision hinged on uncertainty about whether the Australian airstrike (vs. nearby Coalition strikes) caused the deaths.
Investigation Access and Transparency Issue: The claim correctly identifies a serious problem: the Finance Department delegate made the decision without accessing the full ADF investigation report. The man's lawyer, Jacinta Lewin SC, argued in an appeal: "To the extent that there is uncertainty about the precise details of the Australian airstrikes, this is a product of Defence's refusal to provide information about them...Defence's refusal should strengthen, rather than weaken, the conclusion that there is a real likelihood that Australian airstrikes were responsible for the deaths" [1].
The man applied for access to the ADF report under Freedom of Information laws in February 2020, with the matter "under review since July 2020 with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner" [1].
Australian Assessments: The ADF's own assessment found: "the allegation the coalition was responsible for the deaths was assessed as 'credible'" [2]. This official ADF determination of credibility was not sufficient to approve compensation.
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian: The Guardian Australia is a mainstream news organization with credible editorial standards. Journalist Nino Bucci reported directly from official government documents and statements, not from speculation [1].
Primary Documentary Evidence: The Guardian article quotes directly from:
- Official ADF media statements by Air Marshal Mel Hupfeld (February 2019) [2]
- Finance Department decision documents (December 2021) [1]
- Written submissions from the man's lawyer, Jacinta Lewin SC [1]
- Airwars civilian casualty database [2]
All sources are verifiable public documents or official statements. The credibility is high.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor handle similar incidents differently?
Search conducted: "Labor government Iraq civilian casualty compensation claims Australia"
Labor's Record on Civilian Casualties:
The Labor government (2007-2013) was involved in Iraq operations but faced fewer well-documented civilian casualty compensation claims that became public disputes. When Australia withdrew from Iraq in 2013 under Labor, ongoing casualty claims were relatively limited.
However, this is not necessarily evidence that Labor government would have handled this case differently. The specific incident occurred in 2017 during Coalition operations. The compensation request came in 2021, during the Morrison Coalition government.
Broader Context: Both Labor and Coalition governments have been cautious about compensation for civilian casualties in military operations. The act of grace payment process itself existed under previous governments and is standard across Australian agencies (not specific to Defense).
The issue is not unique to the Coalition - it reflects systemic reluctance across Australian governments to admit liability for civilian casualties in military operations and a high evidentiary bar for compensation.
Balanced Perspective
Coalition Government Perspective:
Genuine Uncertainty: Air Marshal Hupfeld stated the ADF assessment found the crew "made no error in this mission. They delivered their ordnance precisely onto the designated target in accordance with their rules of engagement" [2]. The targeting and execution were lawful.
Attribution Difficulty: In a complex urban environment with multiple coalition partners conducting strikes on the same day, determining which specific airstrike caused which deaths is genuinely difficult. The ADF's range of "6-18 civilians" reflected genuine uncertainty [1].
Legal Standard: The act of grace payment requires establishing the Australian government's action caused harm. Reasonable uncertainty about causation could justify denial under strict legal standards.
Lawfulness of Strike: The ADF confirmed the strike was requested by Iraqi Security Forces, targeted valid military personnel, and followed rules of engagement [2]. The civilian presence was not known.
Valid Criticisms:
Transparency Problem: The Finance Department delegate made a compensation decision without reading the ADF's own investigation report. This is a process failure that undermines confidence in the decision [1].
No Alternative Explanation: If the ADF assessment found it "credible" that coalition forces caused the deaths, but simultaneously claimed inability to determine the cause, denying compensation seems inconsistent [2].
Information Control: The ADF's refusal to release investigation details (as of April 2022, under FOI review) prevents independent assessment of the claim. The lawyer's point that withholding information should strengthen the presumption of responsibility has merit [1].
Severity of Harm: 35 deaths, including 14 children, representing nearly complete destruction of an extended family, is extraordinarily serious. Some humanitarian consideration might warrant compensation even under uncertainty [2].
Comparative Military Accountability: Other nations have compensated civilian casualties in Iraq without requiring absolute proof of direct causation. Australia's insistence on high evidentiary standards may be stricter than military allies.
Subsequent Developments:
The U.S. Pentagon later (May 2020) accepted responsibility for 11 of the 35 deaths in a separate engagement on the same street [2]. This created a situation where both Australia and the U.S. acknowledge their forces may have killed civilians in the same incident, but neither has provided full compensation.
TRUE
6.5
out of 10
The core factual claims are true:
- Compensation was denied [1]
- The Finance delegate did not have access to the ADF investigation report [1]
- The department did not provide an alternative explanation for the 35 deaths [1]
However, the claim lacks important context:
- Multiple coalition forces conducted strikes; attribution to Australian forces was genuinely uncertain [2]
- The ADF did assess the allegation as "credible" [2]
- The legal standard for act of grace payments sets a high bar requiring established causation
- There are legitimate reasons for compensation denial, even if the process was flawed
The claim is accurate but presents one side of a complex legal and factual dispute. A fair assessment would acknowledge the genuine uncertainty about attribution while also acknowledging that the lack of procedural transparency (the delegate not reading the investigation) undermines confidence in the decision.
Final Score
6.5
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The core factual claims are true:
- Compensation was denied [1]
- The Finance delegate did not have access to the ADF investigation report [1]
- The department did not provide an alternative explanation for the 35 deaths [1]
However, the claim lacks important context:
- Multiple coalition forces conducted strikes; attribution to Australian forces was genuinely uncertain [2]
- The ADF did assess the allegation as "credible" [2]
- The legal standard for act of grace payments sets a high bar requiring established causation
- There are legitimate reasons for compensation denial, even if the process was flawed
The claim is accurate but presents one side of a complex legal and factual dispute. A fair assessment would acknowledge the genuine uncertainty about attribution while also acknowledging that the lack of procedural transparency (the delegate not reading the investigation) undermines confidence in the decision.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (3)
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.