Tidy Desk Syndrome

Following a week or two of leave after graduation from my Apprentice course in June 1969 I began life in the real Air Force with 77 Squadron, Williamtown.  77 had recently returned from Butterworth to be re-equipped with the Mirage, the last squadron to do so. From memory, there were three clean skin (unpainted) Mirages in the hangar when I arrived.

My first job was six months as Times Clerk in Maintenance Control Section (MCS). This meant keeping  tab of flying hours for each aircraft and, as each Mirage came due for a scheduled servicing determining what engine and airframe components were due for service.

Most components had a servicing history card, probably a little smaller than the tablet I am using to write this. All cards were kept in trays. For each aircraft there was one tray containing cards for the engine components and three or four trays for the other components.

Sergeant Rusty Sproule, a fellow Sumpy, was my boss. He lived on the Base in what must have been an old farmhouse. It stood on its own, not far from the Nelson Bay end of the runway. He kept a few chooks, and, from memory a dog or two and one or two other animals. More than once he invited his green and naive young charge home for a meal.

Rusty preceded me to Butterworth and must have been with 75 Sqn. It was here I last saw him. The day he was due to return home my mate Zeke and I determined to drop in and bid him farewell. However, as anyone who has been to Butterworth knows only too well, one tends to dehydrate quite rapidly in all the heat and humidity. Hence Zeke and I felt the need to rehydrate before we went around to Rusty’s place. We must have been particularly dehydrated on that day because by the time we had rectified the situation and made it to Rusty’s place he had departed on the bus to catch the Qantas flight home.

I had not been at Williamtown long before a sumpy from 20 intake came into MCS with a requisition for  K9P - if you don’t get it, think about it. Now, in my defence, I did not read what was on the form, I simply headed off to have the order filled - and returned some time later. It is not my intention here to name and shame, but I will give a clue. It was rumoured that the member who passed me the form had been too old to enlist as an apprentice so had got in on the basis of his sister’s birth certificate.Rusty was not impressed and let his view be known to the LAC concerned.

The other members of MCS were two framies. I will call one Corporal Dagg and that will suffice to describe the man.  The other, LAC Smart - again, to disguise the guilty. So far as dress and deportment went they were chalk and cheese. LAC Smart turned up every morning with freshly polished boots and ironed overalls. He is the only bloke I can recall that ever had creases in his overalls. Cpl Dagg referred to him as Shiny Arse.

Smart was the Component History Recording System (CHRS) Clerk. Whenever a component on an aircraft was changed it was his job to remove the old component history card from the tray so it could be sent with the component wherever it was off to. Then he was to file the new card, first working out at what hours specific to the aircraft it was now fitted to, it was due for its next service.

Now Shiny Arse kept his desk as neat as his personal appearance. It was meticulously clean, everything on it was carefully arranged, and the only paperwork on the desk was that which he was working on. After his turn in MCS ended and he had returned to the hanger, Dagg opened his draw only to find a pile of cards that Smart obviously had no idea what to do with. Didn’t Dagg take great delight in letting the rest of us know what he thought of Shiny Arse.

Ever since then I have been suspicious of the tidy desk syndrome. Since leaving the Service I have worked with one or two that have shared Smart’s obsession with both personal appearance and that of their desks. My experience of these types has left a rather similar and lasting impression.

In later life I have also had cause to reflect on my MCS experience. I was 18 when I first started at 77 Sqn. While I gave it little thought at the time the job involved a great deal of responsibility. One mistake and Australia could have lost a rather costly fighter jet, people could have been killed, and my career could have been finished. At the time others of my age and older were still at school or university, protesting against the Vietnam war, smoking pot or doing things that had no where near the responsibility that a lot of young people have in the military. There is a sharp contrast between the responsibility and accountability we had in the Service and that of the organisation I worked with almost exclusively following discharge where even those in relatively senior management roles seemed to avoid responsibility as much as they could.

Monotony

My long suffering daughter often pesters me to play Monopoly, that game that has been enjoyed by countless numbers of humans since it was first launched in 1903. I do cave in once in awhile, but only after have I have exhausted my pathetic, fabricated attempts to weasel my way out. It's not that I don’t like playing games with her, it's just that she fails to understand the recurring nightmares that game generates.

This pain I've endured for over 40 years, ever since my six weeks with 38 Squadron Detachment A in Port Moresby. The Detachment operated Caribous out of Jackson Field, now known as Jackson International Airport, as part of Australia’s commitment to Nation Building prior to Papua New Guinea’s independence in late 1975. A normal detachment was three months with a turnover every six weeks. I was lucky in that I was sent to replace a bloke who had to return to Australia halfway through his tour because of illness.

We were accommodated at Murray Barracks which is where we spent most of our time when not at work, especially during the week. We had no transport. Bars were opened for Happy Hour, and that was about all. No movies, no TV, so entertainment was either reading one of the few books around, or playing Monopoly. We may at times have played cards or some other games, but if we did I can’t recall them. Monopoly is what we entertained ourselves with. Night after night. Week after week. Our only reprieve came when we were able to go into Moresby or borrow the Detachment’s Kombi Van to do some sight seeing.

As I said above, I consider myself lucky to have only been there for six weeks. Somewhere during that six weeks Monopoly morphed into Monotony. And that’s the way it has been ever since. I probably have a form of PTSD.

Bivouac

Being a RAAF apprentice was in some ways different to being a civilian apprentice. When I enlisted in 1967 the first thirty months were spent at RAAF Base Wagga. Here we were apprenticed into our different trades with a mix of theory and practical work. However we did not work alongside qualified tradies, learning as we went. At the end of those first two and a half years we graduated as qualified tradesmen (there were no tradeswomen in the RAAF back then) and were posted to different RAAF units. At these units we were part of the workforce, having the same rights and responsibilities of others of same rank and trade although technically we did not receive our trade certificate until we had completed five years. This certificate gave us civilian recognition as fitters.

The major difference however was the fact that we were military apprentices, and that meant that part of our training was devoted to basic military training. Unlike many civilian workplaces the military was not cursed with silly rules designed to protect the vested interests of those in specific job categories. If there was a job to be done and you had the necessary prerequisites you could be called upon to do it.

In the RAAF that meant we could be called upon to take part in defence and security operations. So we were trained in the use of the standard issue service rifle or our day, the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle, or SLR 7.62 mm. This included firing, stripping, cleaning and reassembly, all of which could have been necessary at some time for our survival.

Very early in our final 12 months at Wagga we went on a week’s bivouac. Whether that was seven days, or simply Monday to Friday, I can’t remember. My memories of that time are, like so many others, scant and may be challenged by others with better recall.

It was winter and the event was conducted in the hills somewhere near Tumbarumba on the edge of the Snowy Mountains. We slept on stretchers in service tents so I guess it was not as primitive as it could have been. As I have no recollection of erecting or dismantling the tents I assume that was cared for by others before we arrived and after we left.

The same for the communal thunderboxes. This was something I was totally unprepared for. At Wagga, in some of the older toilet blocks reserved for the other ranks the individual cubicles were doorless, no doubt to allow a supervising NCO ensure no one was bludging on the job. It was always easy however to find something a little more private and, so far as I was concerned, a trip to the dunny was always personal time.

There they were. On the side of the hill, surrounded by hessian, the communal thunderboxes. From memory, there was no shelter from rain or sun. It was a simple arrangement, a long plank with something like six or eight holes designed so that this special time could be shared with others. Still, when nature calls.

At night we did the lantern chase. The aim of this exercise was to climb up a hill and capture the lantern without being caught. We took turns at attacking and defending. I remember once doing a day time unit patrol though the bush trying to locate the enemy before we walked into their ambush. Again, we took turns at being the patrol and the ambush party.

As I said above, this was winter at the base of the Snowy Mountains. To say it was cold would be an understatement. The only water available for washing, shaving and the like was cold, a degree or two above freezing point. Most of spent the week without bathing, but if one was keen enough there was a way.

One of our exercises was to cross a stagnant water hole using a single rope suspended between two trees. This meant hanging upside down passing hand over hand, foot over foot without letting go of the rope. In a perverse way there was an inducement to fail that was taken up by some of our number. In the interests of health and hygiene anyone who fell into the water was required to take a warm shower. Most of us however did not avail ourselves of the opportunity so who knows what we smelt like on our return to Wagga.

While it was part of our training it was almost a holiday camp, a pleasant change from the daily routine at Wagga. With the possible exception of the communal thunder box I have no bad memories. It was far removed from the pictures I have seen of young men, only a few years older than myself, patrolling through the jungles of Vietnam, moving in water up to their waists and higher, knowing at night they slept on the ground. I am so thankful that that was never my experience.

Then again, I often recall the words of my great uncle Roy, a veteran of the trenches in WW1 as I left home. ‘Your RAAF blokes are smart. You send your officers out to do the fighting.’ My choice was the RAAF, and I have never had reason to regret that choice.

Why I'm a Grumpy Old Man

The psychological condition know as Grumpy Old Man Syndrome (GOMS) has been known for many years. Until now however its cause has been unknown. Thanks to a recent scientific breakthrough we now have the answer.

What scientists have found is that we are all born with an innate capacity for absorbing a matter known as bull shit. While there is a large variation between individuals females have a far larger absorption capacity - further research is being carried out to try and understand this gender variation. That which we take in is offset to some degree by a leakage factor, although in most cases we can fill up much faster than we can drain off.

What this means for each of us is that at some point we reach our individual Bull Shit Threshold Limit (BSTL). At this point we can't absorb anymore BS. This is manifest in different ways, but common symptoms include cynicism, grumpiness and a general revulsion at the sight of the moving lips of politicians.

Researchers have also found that among those considered to be at significantly higher risk of developing GOMS are military veterans with a direct correlation between severity of symptoms and length of service.

As any military veteran can attest, the military runs on BS. In fact, it oozes the stuff. This is not normally a problem for recruits nor for some years later. Many who have given long service will tell you they have no regrets about their decision to join and stay. However, a common factor among these veterans and their decision to leave the service is the point came when they reached their BSTL.

Given that many of those who join the military do so at a young age and that there are very few who reach 20 years service you can understand that if you know a military veteran you should not be surprised that they have demonstrated symptoms of GOMS from a comparatively young age.

A Far-Away Christmas

In the lead-up to Christmas - and other days of significance such as Easter, Mothers’ and Fathers’ days  - we are asked to remember our troops on duty overseas and their families. We should. It is something many with Butterworth service have experienced, even if we weren't bunkered down in the foxhole.

I had six Christmases at Butterworth in nine years in the seventies. 1971 was the first Christmas I had experienced without family. In those days there was no email, Facebook or Skype. The only connection with home was snail mail, and Mum spent a lot more on postage stamps than I did.

I signed up as a 16 year old and stayed for 20. The thing I have missed more than anything else in the years post service is the sense of community that existed in the RAAF. Nowhere was that more evident than Malaysia. Christmas 1971 I enjoyed lunch in the airmen’s mess. In the long established service tradition we were served by the officers and sergeants. Who knows where I ended up that night.

Next Christmas I was sharing a house off Green Lane. We organised a party on Christmas Eve - probably not many baggers present but singlies and girlfriends. After the party a group of us headed for Hillside to entertain the baggers with our caroling. I think the only carol we sang wished them a merry Christmas and demanded a liquid reward. I remember - rightly or wrongly - being greeted in the spirit of the season although we were still going strong at 3 or 4 in the morning. Christmas or not, most baggers opened their homes to singlies, a reflection of that sense of community. I can't remember what I did that Christmas Day - probably slept off the party. By the third year I was well on my way to becoming a bagger myself and I have no recollection of it.

I returned to Butterworth in July 1977, this time with two young kids. Christmas was different now that I had responsibilities. It was on this tour that I had my first experience of carols by candlelight. I remember sitting at the Hostie, probably outside, candle in hand. This trip of course Christmas was centered around family, although there were the parties and other social functions.

Christmas morning, 1979. The Donny and Marie poster dates it.

As I reflect on this time I realise that here was a side of service life that was, in many ways, unique. Normally we think of the serving member away from family, but many of us had those 2 or 3 Christmases in Malaysia with our immediate families. Yet there remained the separation. Thirty months relying on the postal service for communication with the extended family. Kids missing out on normal get-togethers with grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins.  Missing out on significant family events like weddings, special birthdays and funerals. For those of us with Malaysian wives it was of course a little different, but for them the separation came when they returned home.

Pressies, 1979

I remember the Christmas parcels from home, but they were chosen with postage costs in mind. Nothing too big and bulky.

It was a memorable time. Despite the separation it remains one of the real highlights of my life, made more memorable by that remarkable family that is the RAAF. For all that shared that experience with me, thanks for the memories. To those baggers and their wives that created a bit of home life - the home-cooked meals and open hospitality - thanks. And to all who have experienced that special time - and those who haven't - a Merry Christmas to you and your kin.

Australian Service Medals and Veterans’ Entitlements

Ken Marsh, 1 December 2015

Introduction

If my conclusions are correct, there are many Australian Military Veterans with eligibility to the Australian Service Medal (ASM) who are being denied the repatriation benefits to which they are entitled under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA). If my conclusions are incorrect I would like to be provided with details of the specific legislative and regulative instruments that demonstrates my error and not some garbled statement from the Ministers or other representatives of the Departments of Defense or Veterans’ Affairs that disregard context and only quote the legislation that suits their position

While the following comments are based on the ASM 1945-1975 both it and the post 1975 ASM are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same. Therefore my comments are equally as relevant to both.

The Australian Service Medal 1945-1975

The Australian Service Medal (ASM) 1945-1975 was Gazetted on 3 April 1995 to recognise service on ‘non-warlike military operations’ between 3 September 1945 and 16 September 1975. To date 14 clasps have been approved:

• Berlin
• FESR (Far East Strategic Reserve)
• Germany
• Indonesia
• Japan
• Kashmir
• Korea
• Middle East
• PNG (Papua New Guinea)
• SE Asia
• Special Ops
• SW Pacific
• Thailand
• W New Guinea

Service from 1975 onward until the recent introduction of the Operational Service Medal is recognised with the Australian Service Medal.

Under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, Section 6.F, ‘non-warlike service qualifies as ‘Operational Service’, thus attracting more generous benefits than defense, or peacetime, service. Non-warlike service attracts similar benefits to warlike service with the exception of a service pension and automatic entitlement to a Gold Card at 70. For example, those with peacetime service can receive a disability pension for arthritic knees if they can show that they climbed or descended 300 or more steps on most days of the week for 10 years and are diagnosed with arthritis within 25 years of doing so. For operational service it is suffice to demonstrate ascending and descending the same number of steps for a two year period without limit on the years that have past before the condition presents.

There is an inconsistency associated with the award in that at least some of the clasps are not recognised as ‘operational service’, as is also the case with some post 1975 service. This appears to be in contravention of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

What the Minister Said

In July I wrote to my local member asking why some holders of the ASM are treated differently to others with regards entitlements. Recently I received a response from the former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson. I quote:

In describing service rendered by Australian personnel in PNG during the relevant period and the reasoning behind the decision to award the ASM in respect of this service, Mr Marsh refers to and quotes from the 1994 report of the Committee of Inquiry into Defence Awards (CIDA). Mr Marsh also makes reference to the criteria used by the Committee of the Review of Veterans’ Entitlements (the Clarke Review) to assess non-warlike service in 2003.

As you will appreciate, it is important not to confuse the differing objectives and terms of reference of the CIDA and Clarke Review. The CIDA was solely concerned with reviewing the medallic entitlements provided in respect of different types of and periods of service in the Australian armed forces. Conversely, the Clarke Review’s scope was confined to the classification of different periods of service in relation to eligibility for benefits under the Repatriation system. It is a long-established principle that the administration of veterans’ entitlements and medallic recognition for various types of service is entirely separate, and the recipient of a certain level of entitlement does not necessarily imply eligibility for a certain level of the other.

Thus, while the Directorate of Honours and Awards within the Department of Defence on occasion uses the term ‘non-warlike’ to describe service under peacetime conditions, this does not mean that the same service is regarded as as non-warlike service (or an equivalent classification) under the legislation administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. While the Clarke Review found that service in PNG during the relevant period often involved arduous and long patrols in harsh terrain, essential purposes of these duties was training and the readying of PNG personnel to form a national defence force after independence. The Review concluded that the duties undertaken by Australian personnel in PNG during this period should not be covered under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA).

The Minister’s statement must be seen in context.

WWII to 1993

According to Clarke, the VEA provides entitlements to personnel who have given three years continuous service ‘on or after 7 December 1972 until the terminating date, namely 7 April 1994’, when the Military Compensation Scheme was introduced. (Provisions exist for those with less than three years service who were medically discharged.) (Clarke, 13.25 - 13.35).

In 1981 provision was made for those on peacekeeping operations and this was made retrospective to the end of WWII in 1982. Hazardous service was introduced without a definition in 1986 to cover service that could not be classified as peacekeeping but was considered to have a similar level of risk. Determination of hazardous service was made by the Minister of Defence. Peacekeeping and hazardous service classification do not attract a service pension but do qualify for the more generous access to compensation entitlements.(Clarke 13.18 - 13.24).

Former Defense Force personnel with service prior to 1972 with peacetime service only are entitled to compensation on the same basis as Commonwealth Public Servants - according to Clarke. (Clarke, 13.27).

In the years between then end of WWII and 1993 the number of overseas deployments of Australian Defence Force (ADF) members had steadily increased. The system of determining conditions was drawn out, subject to negotiations between different departments, with the troops not being informed of conditions and entitlements prior to departure. Consequently inconsistencies between deployments arose. (Clarke 13.36 - 13.38).

Warlike and Non-Warlike Service Introduced

In 1993 the Government introduced the terms ‘warlike’ and ‘non-warlike’ service and these have been used by Defense since 1994. Definitions for both were inserted into the VEA, effective from 13 May 1997. (Clarke 10.8; 13.38). Non-warlike service is defined in S.5C (1) as ‘service in the Defence Force of a kind determined in writing by the Defence Minister to be non-warlike service.’ It embraces service where the risk is less than that of warlike but greater than normal peacetime service, including both peacekeeping and hazardous service. Casualties could occur but are not expected and the use of force is limited to self defence (Clarke 10.10).

A determination of ‘warlike’ or ‘non-warlike’ is now made by the Minister prior to deployment. The risk assessment includes an evaluation of military and environmental (health) threats. Clarke 13.40). However, as noted above, the terms ‘warlike’ and ‘non-warlike’ were inserted into the VEA in 1997, approximately three years after service under the Act terminated. Clearly this means that any determination of ‘warlike’ or ‘non-warlike’ service within the period to which the Act applies could only be made retrospectively.

Clarke’s Terms of Reference are contained in Volume1, Appendix 1 of the report. They are expressed thus:

Terms of Reference

The Government is committed to providing fair, consistent and appropriate benefits to Australia’s veterans.

Against this background, the committee will review and make recommendations on:

1. The current policy relating to eligibility for access to VEA benefits and qualifying service under VEA; and
2. The benefits available to disability compensation pensioners under the VEA.

These terms were expanded to review specific matters relating to access to benefits and perceived anomalies arising from past service.

The Committee of Inquiry into Defense Awards

CIDA, chaired by General Peter Gration, presented its report in March 1994. It was later described as ‘possibly the most significant of all reviews dealing with Defence medals.’ (Defense Honours and Awards and Commendations Policy Review, 8 February 2008). Its  terms of reference included:

• Examine claims for recognition of categories of service.
• Consider the need, if any, to introduce additional awards to recognise service in past defence-related activities of either warlike or non-warlike nature.
• Make appropriate recommendations.

The Committee developed 10 principles to guide its deliberations.

Principle 8 stated:

Recognising that its work requires viewing past service through the eyes of 1994, the Committee believes that an appropriate benchmark considering hitherto unrecognised service between 1945 and 1975 is the terms and conditions currently attached to an award of the Australian Active Service and Australian Service Medals. Service rendered during this period which generally meets those terms and conditions should receive retrospective and comparable recognition.

It would have been well aware of Government policy regarding operational service and medals. A prerequisite for the award of an operational medal such as the ASM is the declaration of a military operation. This was reiterated in 2010 by the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant General D. J. Hurley AC, DSC, in a submission to the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal  Inquiry into the Recognition of Members of Rifle Company Butterworth for Service in Malaysia between 1970 and 1989. To quote paragraphs 31 and 36:

(31) Current government policy on the nature of operational service and its relationship with medals is drawn from a 1993 Cabinet Decision which established the extant conditions of service framework. One of the key outcomes of the Cabinet Decision was agreement on new definitions for warlike and non-warlike service… Under the framework a nature of service declaration becomes an enabling driver for the associated conditions of service package. This includes non-financial conditions of service such as medals…

(36) The determination of the nature of service of a particular operation marks the point at which the Directorate of Honours and Awards can consider the appropriate level of medallic recognition for the operation in accordance with established policy. Under the conditions of service framework personnel deployed on warlike operations are awarded the Australian Active Service Medal with an appropriate clasp. Personnel deployed on a less hazardous, non-warlike operation, are awarded the Australian Service Medal with an appropriate clasp.

This policy is reflected in CIDA’s Principle 10:

Matters relating to honours and awards should be considered on their merits in accordance with these principles,and these considerations should not be influenced by the possible impact, real or perceived, on veterans’ entitlements.  

CIDA expanded on this principle:

Even though the terms of reference for the Committee preclude it from considering issues relating to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, the Committee remains conscious of the nexus between medals and entitlements in some cases. The Committee considers, however, that entitlement issues are a separate matter for consideration by the Australian Government and its agencies.

Again, in 2010 Lieutenant General D. J. Hurley AC, DSC, advised the inquiry into service at Butterworth, at paragraph 52:

The Governor-General cannot declare an operation or Defence activity to be warlike for the purpose of the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 Regulations, or Australian Active Service Medal Regulations, and thus institute a clasp to either award, without the Government first agreeing that the service is or was warlike in nature and the Minister has declared this to be the case under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

Both the AASM and ASM (45-75 and post 75) have almost identical regulations. The General’s statement could not be clearer - declarations of warlike and, by extension non-warlike service, can only be declared for the purpose of the VEA, thus entitling holders or those awards  to the associated repatriation entitlements.

Compare this to what the Minister said above. CIDA understood that its recommendations regarding category of service may well provide access to entitlements under the VEA if accepted. Recommendations for warlike and non-warlike service in its report, if accepted by Government, would provide more generous repatriation benefits to veterans.

CIDA Recommends the Establishment of the Australian Service Medal 1945-1975

CIDA recommended ‘the establishment of an Australian Service Medal 1945-1975 to recognise service in a prescribed peacekeeping or non-warlike operation for the period 1945-1975 where recognition has not extended previously through an award. (p. iv). Its rationale is provided on page 9. ‘Under the Imperial system, General Service Medals recognised service in minor campaigns and operations which did not warrant the issue of a separate medal.’ The AASM and ASM replaced the General Service Medal 1962. Different operations were shown by clasps attached to the medal ribbon. It was recommended that the ASM 1945-1975 should have similar terms and conditions to the ASM.

It will be seen from the following table that, to all intents and purposes, the two medals are one and the same.

ASM 1945-1975	ASM
Gazetted 3 April 1995	Gazetted 2 November 1988
From the Letters Patent, signed by Her Majesty and the Prime Minister: ‘WHEREAS it is desirable that there be instituted an Australian medal for the purpose of according recognition to members of the Defence Force, and certain other persons, who rendered service in non-warlike military operations’	From the Letters Patent, signed by Her Majesty and the Prime Minister: WHEREAS it is desirable that there be instituted an Australian medal for the purpose of according recognition to members of the Defence Force and certain other persons who render service in certain non-warlike military operations’
Regulation 3: ‘The Governor-General, on the recommendation of a Minister, may declare a non-warlike operation in which members of the Defence Force were engaged at any time during the period that commenced on 3 September 1945 and ended on 16 September 1975, to be a declared operation for the purposes of these Regulations.’	Regulation 3: ‘ The Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister, may declare a non-warlike operation, in which members or the Defence Force are, or have been on or after 14 February 1975, engaged, to be a prescribed operation for the purposes of these Regulations.’
Regulation 4 (1): ‘The Medal may be awarded to: (a) a member, or a former member, of the Defence Force; or (b)   a person in a class of persons determined by a Minister for the purposes of these Regulations:’	Regulation 4 (1): ‘ The Medal may be awarded for service in or in connection with a prescribed operation.’
Regulation 4 (3): ‘The Medal may only be awarded to a person who fulfils the conditions for the award of the Medal.’	Regulation 4 (5): ‘The Medal may not be awarded except to a person who fulfils the conditions for the award of the Medal.’

Conclusion

CIDA was tasked to examine claims for recognition of service categories, consider the necessity of new awards to recognise service in warlike and non-warlike operations in the period 1945 - 1975, and make recommendations as appropriate. In so doing it reviewed past service against the terms and conditions applying to the Australian Service and Australian Active Service Medals. The Committee also recommended the creation of an Australian Service Medal 1945-1975 with similar terms and conditions applying to the ASM. In doing so it recognised the nexus between medals and entitlements in some cases.

The VEA defines non-warlike service as ‘a kind determined in writing by the Defence Minister to be non-warlike service.’ A non-warlike service classification entitles a member or former member of the ADF to more generous entitlements than those with peacetime service.

Both ASMs were established to recognise service in ‘non-warlike military operations’. Regulations for both medals require a declaration of a non-warlike operation by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for Defence. Neither medal can be awarded to a person who does not fulfil the requirement of the regulations.

The award ASM 1945-1975 clearly recognises service in a declared non-warlike service operation that qualifies recipients for more generous entitlements under the VEA. These entitlements are clearly denied many veterans by the Department of Veterans’ affairs, the very body established to Parliament to administer Veterans’ entitlements.

The question is: Why?

References

CIDA – Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Defence Awards, 1994

Clarke, John, the Honourable, QC (Chairman), January 2003 Report of the Review of Veterans’ Entitlements

Defence Honours and Awards website, at http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/. Provides access to relevant Commonwealth Gazette documents.

Defence Honours and Awards and Commendations Policy Review, 8 February 2008

Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, to the Hon. Paul Fletcher, MP, Federal Member for Bradfield, 7 Sept 2015,Ref:M15/2359

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant General D. J. Hurley AC, DSC,  Submission for the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal, Inquiry into the Recognition of Members of Rifle Company Butterworth for Service in Malaysia between 1970 and 1989, 23rd June 2010.