RCB Introduction to Complaint 1

RIFLE COMPANY BUTTERWORTH SUPPORTERS GROUP

46 WOODEND RD SHEIDOW PARK 5158

[Download the full document by clicking here.]

PART ONE

COMPLAINT ONE

1. We contend that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and Department of Defence (DOD) have willfully and intentionally disregarded written evidence supplied to it, to deprive over 9000 members of the Royal Australian Regiment, who have served in Rifle Company in Malaysia in the period 1970 to 1989 of their Repatriation entitlements and medallic entitlements at the appropriate level.

2. We contend that the ADF and DOD are guilty of offences under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977-Sect 5. 1, which states:

(a)   that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with making the decision:

(b)   that procedures required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed:

5. 2 (a) taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise in power;

(b) failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of power;

CONCLUSIONS

3. The following conclusions can be made from the evidence supplied to the Department of Defence on two occasions.

  1. Service in RCB was “Warlike Service” due to firstly its role was to “Protect Australian Assets” from Communist Terrorist elements in Malaysia between 1970 and 1989.
  2. There was a threat from an armed adversary.
  3. Intelligence briefings supported the “Threat Assessment”.
  4. Training in “Casualty Evacuation” and “Combat First Aid” was conducted.
  5. Legal opinions of Mohr and Clarke support the findings.
  6. Opinions from some senior officers support the “War Like” assertion.
  7. Opinions should be based on 1973 scenarios not 2011 as stated by Mohr and Clarke.
  8. Senior officers in the approval process have intentionally ignored written evidence.

4. The key document which was the Defence submission to the Defence Honours and Award Tribunal VCDF/OUT/2010/492 dated 23 June 2010. The reference known as Ref 2.5 is attached. The document was gained under FOI provisions.

  1. The Defence submission is an interesting document in what it says and what it doesn’t say. It highlights in detail the confused and confusing history of the Honours and Awards system but it does not highlight the many occasions in which the Gration Report Statement of Principles have been ignored, manipulated or misrepresented. This subject on Defence Honours and Awards Policy is a much broader topic, which needs, investigation, clarification and to reflect modern and legally just policies which I do not intend to address here.
  2. What the document does not say in any detail is the factual background to the deployment of RCB, the rules it operated under, command and control, the Nature of Service (NOS) of RCB compared with RAAF service in the same area, history of the Second Communist Uprising in Malaysia and most importantly the definitions of danger as determined in law by The Hon Justice Mohr and expanded on by The Hon J Clarke QC.

[Download the full document by clicking here.]