Hacks never let the facts get in the way of a good story – and journalists from Granny Sydney Morning Herald’s leader writers down seem to be confused over just where those missing rocket launchers have actually disappeared from.

“People tend to regard the terms ‘Defence’ and ‘the ADF’, wrongly, as synonymous,” the Australian Defence Association’s Neil James says.

“The ammunition and ordnance factories previously owned and operated by the Department of Defence were privatised under the Hawke Government. Some are still owned by the Commonwealth but all are operated by a commercial contractor. Other facilities manufacturing or storing ammunition and explosives for the defence force are owned by various contractors. Functions that used to be performed by public servants in the factories, and a mixture of public servants and ADF personnel in ammunition depots, are now undertaken under civil contracts supervised by the Department of Defence.

“Most of the ex-Defence factories are owned or operated by Thales Australia (previously known as Australian Defence Industries until a renaming in late 2005).

“The firm that imports the launchers is not Thales.

“Ammunition and small arms factories in Australia have not been ‘Defence’ factories – in the sense they are operated by the Department of Defence as a government business enterprise – since the late 1980s and have never been part of the defence force. They are, of course, defence industry factories with a small “d” in defence.

“This mixed commercial-departmental responsibilities and the inexact terminology being used perhaps explains the confusion in some quarters.

“The general but incorrect assumption too often is that weapons or ammunition eventually used by the defence force are owned by the ADF even during the preceding manufacturing, importation, storage or transport processes that occur before they reach defence force and in some cases even Department of Defence hands.

“These rocket launchers were apparently stolen somewhere in the supply chain before their issue to the defence force. This would mean they were therefore not the property (or responsibility) of the ADF in any shape or form.

“In line with long established policy each supplier to the Department of Defence is responsible for the security of their facilities – although the security standards are set and monitored by the Defence Security Authority of the Department of Defence (but not the ADF).”

James says no security system, however, will ever be 100% secure because people are involved and people are fallible. Most significant weapon thefts from police, security company or military armouries, he says in the way of an example, are inside jobs.

“The audit problems within the Department of Defence do not generally involve weapons and certainly not small arms. They are also largely departmental (including DMO) responsibilities not defence force ones.

“The ADF takes pretty good care of the security of its weapons and certainly much better care, for example, than the state police forces and, particularly, private security companies.

“It is therefore very galling for the members of the ADF when there is constant incorrect or sensationalist media and political commentary criticising the defence force for things they are not guilty of and not responsible for.”