Recognition Of RCB

You are here: Home / Archives for Service Recognition

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 

by

The Australian – Malaya vets campaign on ‘war service’

The Australian – Malaya vets campaign on ‘war service’

The 9,000 men of Rifle Company Butterworth (RCB) are fighting to have their deployment and its risks recognised as warlike service.

EXCLUSIVE – PAUL MALEY 28th February 2020

‘We were put into harm’s way’: Ray Fulcher served in the Second Malayan Emergency

‘We were put into harm’s way’: Ray Fulcher served in the Second Malayan Emergency

The year is 1972 and Gough Whitlam is fulfilling an election pledge to bring home Australian troops from Vietnam, formally ending years of armed conflict with communist insurgents across Southeast Asia.

In northern Malaysia at the Butterworth Air Base, a small contingent of Australian servicemen still carry live rounds and patrol for communist guerillas they occasionally spy peering from jungles nearby.

“There was a Rifle Company Butterworth patrol that encountered a group of communist terrorists,’’ Ray Fulcher, chairman of the RCB review group, tells The Australian. “They went to ground but there was no shots fired.’’

Nearly 50 years on and the men of Rifle Company Butterworth are fighting to have their deployment and its risks recognised as a warlike service.

It has been a long, friendless fight. Official reviews have declined to upgrade their service, a move that would entitle them to a richer array of veterans’ benefits, including a much-prized Gold Card entitling them to a range of public and private healthcare services. It would also clear the way for RCB veterans to get the Australian Active Service Medal, the badge of honour bestowed upon all Australian personnel who served in “warlike’’ theatres.

Now they are passing the hat around to fund a Federal Court challenge they hope will see their status formally changed. To Mr Fulcher, as well as to other members of the RCB veterans’ community, it is a question of fairness.

“We were put into harm’s way to counter a threat in Malaysia and support them in their operations against communist terrorists,’’ Mr Fulcher said.

“They cannot renege now on their responsibilities, which is what they’re trying to do.’’

In nearly 20 years of service, RCB members never fired a shot in anger or had one fired at them. They suffered no combat casualties. The RAAF base they were sent to guard was never attacked. The base itself was a hangover from World War II.

So it is not hard to see why the Australian Defence Force has consistently refused to recognise deployment to Butterworth as warlike.

Yet the official designation of peacetime service doesn’t quite fit either. Soldiers on training deployments — notionally the reason the RCB was sent to Malaya — don’t pack live rounds. Nor was any training done.

“The government’s big thing is that we were training with the Malaysians,’’ Mr Fulcher said. “There were one or two who did, but that was later.

“There was no way we could train with the Malaysians — they were busy with their war.’’ That “war’’ was the decades-long conflict waged between the officially recognised government of Malaysia and the Malaysian Communist Party.

It was a simmering insurgency identical in type, if not in scale, to conflicts fought in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Fifteen Australians died fighting in the First Malayan Emergency and 24 more were killed on active service.

By 1968, the communists had regrouped and launched a fresh offensive. The base at Butterworth, which had been transferred by the British to Australia in 1957, became a strategic outpost, a means by which Australia could project force into an increasingly unstable region.

Butterworth was the only airbase outside Australia where the RAAF maintained a permanent offensive presence.

Even now, Australian troops still rotate regularly through it. During the takeover by Islamic State of Marawi in the southern Philippines, the RAAF used Butterworth to send P-3 Orion spy planes to surveil the group.

In 2018, the government announced it would upgrade Butterworth to accommodate the new fleet of F-35 fighter planes.

During the 1960s, it served as a deterrent and a backstop to the Malaysian government. For this reason, Mr Fulcher thinks the 9000-odd servicemen who rotated through Butterworth from 1970-89 deserve recognition: “If the government sends people into harm’s way, that’s warlike service. If you send them somewhere where there’s a possibility they’ll be shot at, you owe them.’’

Mr Fulcher was there in 1979 when it was a fully fledged operating base, and a staging post for air combat missions flown by Malaysians against the communists.

RCBRG Comment

We thank Paul Maley for his article. In preparing the article we supplied relevant data months ago and he spoke with three of our Group separately in telephone conversations two days before its publication. We highlighted the two dominant issues that we were contesting:
Firstly, that the decision that RCB service was peacetime service similar to garrison duty in Australia and that the criteria for warlike service was met namely: a specific military objective; a specific area of operations; an enemy threat existed; there was an expectation of casualties; live ammunition was carried and that there were lethal rules of engagement.

Secondly, that the Government’s due process in handling our grievance was not applied in a fair manner. 14 years of effort by the RCB Group to exercise its right to the truth and its right to challenge the decision have been met with a Government process that is blatantly unfair.

The article fails to consider the strategic context of security threats from communist expansion (The Domino Theory) in SEA and our strategic Alliance under the Five Power Defence Arrangement with the vital role that the RAAF, deployed at Air Base Butterworth (ABB), had in providing a deterrent to further Communist aggression in South East Asia beyond the 1960s he writes of “During the 1960s, it served as a deterrent and a backstop to the Malaysian government.” Our Alliance continued through the Malaysian Emergency War 1968 -1989 and still exists today.

It does not report that the genesis of the RCB deployment was the outbreak of Malaysia’s Insurgency War in 1968 against a resurgent communist terrorists and the Australian Government’s decision Defence Committee Minute (Secret) 2/73 to protect the RAAF Assets at ABB against the threat. In that Minute it records: “This (deployment) could be presented publicly as being for training purposes”. Herewith is the deception of the true RCB’s warlike service that meets the criteria.

The article does not report our request for an independent of government judicial enquiry.

However a positive from Paul Marley’s article is that it does expose the matter to the Australian people. Our challenge is to build on that entry with our own troops and supporters in direct action campaign in the field.

It is a pity that Paul did not check his “facts” with us before publishing.