Recognition Of RCB

You are here: Home / Archives for RCB

by

Military and Political Risk in South-East Asia 1971-1989

Military and Political Risk in South-East Asia 1971-1989

Australia’s Commitment to the Five Power Defence –

Arrangements and the Integrated Air Defence System

For almost two decades Australia maintained a Mirage fighter force at Butterworth in Northwest Malaysia during the 1968-89 Communist Insurgency War, or the Second Malaysian Emergency (SME). Australians at Butterworth incurred danger from hostile forces and both countries risked political embarrassment. An army rifle company that became known as Rifle Company Butterworth (RCB) was deployed to Malaysia as a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) in response to the identified terrorist threat.

 Permanent deployment of foreign forces within its borders was inconsistent with Malaysia’s non-aligned foreign policy. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) presence was accepted as a necessity because of Malaysia’s lack of air defence capacity.

The Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA),  which allowed the RAAF presence, did not include a permanent army company, this being agreed to later.

Political sensitivity meant the deployment’s real purpose was hidden from the Australian public. Almost fifty years later the Australian Department of Defence still denies the facts of this deployment and the serious threat posed by the SME thus denying Butterworth veterans their proper recognition and entitlements.

Previously classified high-level security documents accessed from the National Archives of Australia reveal the concerns held by Australia’s senior Defence officials and show the secrecy surrounding the deployment of the RCB.

 This paper by Ken Marsh reviews the SME, the development of the FPDA and associated Integrated Air Defence System (IADS). It discusses the military and political risk associated with the Australian commitment to Malaysia and makes the case for warlike service recognition for Butterworth veterans.

Australia’s commitment to the FPDA incurred political and military risk from a resurgent communist insurgency. Additional security measures were implemented to protect the Mirage squadrons and Australian personnel at Butterworth as the communist threat intensified. These included the permanent deployment of an Australian Army infantry company as a quick reaction force. Owing to political sensitivities at the time the real purpose of the deployment was hidden under a pretense of training. While the Base was never attacked, possibly owing to the company’s deterrent effect, the fact remains that personnel at Butterworth and their dependents incurred danger from the communist terrorist organisation. Based on available evidence, and contrary to Defence Department claims, Butterworth operated under warlike service conditions and veterans from the era are deserving of such recognition.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE – Military-and-Political-Risk-in-South-East-Asia-1971-1989Download

Ken’s article is published in SABRETACHE: the journal of the Military Collectors Society of Australia vol. LXI, no. 3 – September 2020

by

RCB Update 3/2020 – More Steps in the Right Direction

RCB Update 3/2020 – More Steps in the Right Direction

Arising from the Tribunal’s decision and findings we took the following actions:

  1. Applied to the Federal Court to seek extension to the 28 days in which to make application for our case.
  2. Wrote to Minister Chester to approve hazardous Service.

After detailed analysis of various factors including legal jurisdiction and financial we decided to withdraw from any legal appeal of the DHAAT’s decision in the Federal Court. Our decision does not prejudice legal action(s) in other jurisdictions.

Of the Tribunal’s decision we noted that:

  1. It was not based on the criteria for warlike service existing in the period 1970 – 1989 but on that established later in 1993 and 2018; and
  2. It did not consider application of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1963 which we had been told in 2007 was the applicable Act.

These will be key points for legal/political action in the future.

Letters to Minister Chester

Minister Chester

This letter to Chester dated 29 May 2020 has not been acknowledged nor answered.

RCB APPEAL – DHAAT DECISION AND FINDINGS
Dear Minister,

As you know the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Directorate of Honours and Awards of the Department of Defence to not recommend me for the Australian Active Service Medal.

And in the Tribunal’s further consideration of my request of a recommendation that the Minister advise the Governor-General that service at Air Base Butterworth for the period in question be declared ‘warlike’, it came to a number of conclusions and findings that RCB service was hazardous pursuant to Sect 120 of the Veterans Entitlement Act and not warlike nor peacetime service.

Minister, you will recall RCB’s claim’s history starting with its 2006 submission (18/8/2006) to Defence Minister sought the reclassification of its service from peacetime to warlike and Assistant Defence Minister Billson’s decision after assessment by the Nature of Service Review Team, (vide Minister Billson (04/10/2007)) to declare RCB service as hazardous pursuant to Sect 120 of the Veterans Entitlement Act. In 2009 it was found that the Minister’s decision’s instruments were never registered by Defence nor promulgated. When this error was revealed to Defence it had NOSB conduct another review that the then Defence Minister accepted and overturned the 2007 decision reverting RCB service classification to peacetime.

This initiated the RCB Review Group’s involvement in the Defence Department’s grievance process: involving numerous submissions and taking it through the DHAAT, House of Representatives Petitions Committee and Hearings, the Defence Ombudsman, further internal Defence Reviews and finally your invitation to what transpired to be the “infamous false meeting” in Parliament House with your Defence (NOSB) advisors on 26th November 2018 and on the following day the meeting with yourself which was regretfully interrupted by House business. Through this whole process and despite the evidence presented Defence could not be dissuaded from their decision that RCB service was peacetime. 

Minister, now given the Tribunal’s findings we invite you to give full effect to upgrading RCB’s service to hazardous.

Yours sincerely,

Ray Fulcher
Chairman RCB Review Group
Date: 29 May 2020

On the 7th July 2020 a further request from Ray Fulcher “when might I anticipate a response from Minister Chester” was sent.

Chester’s office claimed that the correspondence had been overlooked but would be brought to the Minister’s attention. As at today’s date no response has been received. Ray continues to pursue this matter.

Is this a natural and fair process?

Continuous Actions

We will continue our direct-action strategies to fight for our individual fundamental rights to the truth and to challenge a decision.
For RCB veterans that is their right to expose both the truth of their service Deception to the Australian people and the unfair process applied to their challenge to the Government’s decision, via all means.

The Truth – “The search for truth takes you where the evidence leads you”

Our search for the truth of the Deception took us to the Government’s and Defence Department’s own official documents including over 170 past secret and one past top secret. Yet, in our challenge we have been denied fair process as required in the relevant Ministerial standards and codes of ethics and conduct.

In this whole process Defence has maintained that RCB service was peacetime and have denied us the right to challenge it through a fair and just process that would allow us to:

  • meet with the Minister and his Defence Nature of Service Departmental advisors,
  • allow us to challenge the evidence given by other parties in Parliament, at Tribunals and Petition Committees’ Hearings, and
  • independent third-party mediation.  

What we have experienced has been a Government complaints process that did not “…act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility, and the public interest, as required by the PM’s Ministerial standards”  And we have the evidence to support it.

Those Standards state that Ministers are entrusted with considerable privilege and wide discretionary power. “In recognition that public office is a public trust, therefore, the people of Australia are entitled to expect that, as a matter of principle, Ministers will act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility, and the public interest, as required by these Standards”.

While the Covid 19 pandemic has the Government and our nations undivided attention we will concentrate on preparatory action for implementation with a co-ordinated national social media  campaign when the time is right. In the meantime, please keep the matter alive in contact with your Federal MP.

Thanks for your commitment, continued patience and support. Stay in touch here 

Ray Fulcher
RCB Service 1979
Chairman RCB Review Group
Date: 13 August 2020

The RCB Review Group

(the dates record their years of military service)

Robert Cross
(1972 – 1999)		Phill Wolfenden
(1970 – 1993)		Stan Hannaford
(1972- 2001)		Gary Stone
(1970 – 2017)
         
Russell Linwood
(1970 – 2017)		Mike von Berg
(1962 – 1974)		Mike Dennis (decd)
 		Peter Kelly
(1972 – 1997)
Ray Fulcher
(1974 – 1980)		Ken Marsh (RAAF)
(1967 – 1987)		Ted Chitham
(1955 – 1977)		Mark Matthews
 

by

RCB Update 2/2020 – DHAAT Decision Denies Warlike Service Appeal

RCB Update 2/2020 – DHAAT Decision Denies Warlike Service Appeal

Ray’s appeal was heard on the 26th March 2020 by telephone

We are disappointed DHAAT did not find warlike service yet we are buoyed by their finding that RCB service was NOT peacetime but hazardous.

Read the full text of the Tribunal’s Decision here

PDF Download
Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal decision is appealable in the Federal Court within 28 days of the decision being notified: in our case by the 12th June 2020. An Appeal is limited to a question of Law and does not apply to errors of fact. The Federal Court would decide if the Tribunal has made an error of law in reaching its decision.

The RCB RG has completed a detailed analysis of the decisions, findings and its considerations. We are exploring the grounds for appeal with our legal advisors. The residue of our supporters donated funds will be used for this purpose. Chief among our concerns is the Tribunal’s finding being based on the current criteria for warlike service and not that existing at the time of the deployments (1970-1989).

RCB Service was at least Hazardous

The Tribunal’s finding supports our claim that the RCB service was NOT peacetime service.

We all recall our RCB’s formal claim’s history starting with the 2006 submission (18/8/2006) to Defence Minister Nelson that sought the reclassification of its service from peacetime to warlike and Defence’s decision after assessment by the Nature of Service Review Team, (vide Minister Billson (04/10/2007)) to declare RCB service as hazardous pursuant to Sect 120 of the Veterans Entitlement Act.

In 2009 it was found that the Minister’s decision instruments were never registered by Defence nor promulgated. When this was revealed Defence had NOSB conduct another review that Defence accepted and overturned the 2007 decision thereby reverting RCB to peacetime service.

It was the trigger for us to apply the Defence Department’s grievance process through the DHAAT (2010), House of Representatives Petitions Committee and Hearings (2014), Senator Burston’s representation and Minister Tehan’s internal Defence Review (2017), the Defence Ombudsman (2018) , and finally after 12 years of requests to meet with the Minister and his Defence NOSB advisors receiving that invitation to the infamous “false meeting” with the Minister’s advisors (who attended as observers only and no engagement with us) on 26th November 2018 and on the 27th November 2018 with Minister Chester that was unfortunately interrupted by his call to the House to vote. Since then the Minister has not responded to our correspondence for further engagement.



The Process

Process

In this whole process Defence has maintained that RCB service was peacetime and have  denied us the right to challenge it through a fair and just process that would allow us to:

  • meet with the Minister and his Defence Nature of Service Departmental advisors,
  • allow us to challenge the evidence given by other parties at Tribunals and Petition Committees’ Hearings, and
  • independent third party mediation.  

We have experienced a Government complaints process that did not “…act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility, and the public interest, as required by the PM’s Ministerial standards” Those Standards identify that Ministers are entrusted with considerable privilege and wide discretionary power. “In recognition that public office is a public trust, therefore, the people of Australia are entitled to expect that, as a matter of principle, Ministers will act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility, and the public interest, as required by these Standards”.

Given the Tribunal’s findings, we are going to ask Minister Chester to give full effect to upgrading RCB’s service to hazardous but at same time keep our legal and other options open. 

Hazardous Service Benefit

 In simple terms if RCB service were to be reclassified to hazardous service it would mean a more generous “reasonable hypothesis “test and “beyond reasonable doubt “standard of proof being applied when lodging a claim for a defence caused injury, disease or death.

 There would be no change to VEA entitlements or medals, however, it would elevate the importance of that service to a recognised higher degree of military risk.

Its been 50 years since the first RCB’s deployment, 31 years since the end of our security/protection/defence role and 14 years since our first formal submission to challenge the Government’s classification of our service as peacetime. On that journey we have both searched for and found the truth to support our claim for warlike service and sought to challenge the Government’s decision through a process that we have found to be unjust.

“THANK YOU to all our supporters whose determination has been inspirational.“

Ray Fulcher
RCB Service 1979
Chairman RCB Review Group
Date: 22 May 2020