If There’s no Trust, What’s Left?

Trust: the result of a working environment in which human values are paramount: the dignity of the individual is respected; undertakings are honoured; those in need are helped; and decisions are taken which result in just outcomes.

There is no field of endeavour in which trust is more important than that of the profession of arms. It follows that a breach of trust by an appointed leader, goes to the heart of exactly who we are and what it is that we stand for.

The Chief of Army has said that: “Our culture is ‘how well we translate our values into how we think, and what we say and do every day’. Every action our soldiers [and their leaders] take should be aligned with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) values”.

One has to wonder if the CA was respectful of Army’s culture and ADF values, when he ordered 1st Armoured Regiment to be stripped of its tanks and given a new role as a non-combatant.

The secrecy imposed on the decision and the lack of consultation involved, amounted to a breach of trust. No doubt there was a select group of advisors. However, veterans who contributed to the unit’s three battle-honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry, were completely blindsided. Presumably this was because any ‘leak’ would have precipitated an enormous backlash.

The CA also said that “the ethical behaviour of our soldiers is one of my principal responsibilities”.

The Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) advised that the CA sought advice from the Royal Australian Armoured Corps’ (RAAC) Head of Corps. This is as it should be. The CDF failed to mention, however, what the advice was. The impression given is that the HOC supported the CA; whereas the HOC at the time actually wrote to the CA “requesting that he reconsider his decision”. Misrepresentation of this sort is obviously unethical.

The RAAC was united in its opposition to stripping the tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment and making it a non-combatant. The Representative Honorary Colonel, the Immediate Past Rep Hon Col, the 1 Armd Regt Hon Col, the RAAC Head of Corps, the RAAC Corps Conference, and the 1 Armd Regt Association, all recommended against it.

So what? So, a loss of trust in senior leadership results.

So what? So, morale, and consequently, combat power, is weakened.

Furthermore, poor morale leads to poor recruitment … the last thing the ADF needs!

The CA has, on a number of occasions, been asked to meet with two veteran representatives (or allow his Chief of Staff to meet with them). He refused. A list of questions for discussion at the meeting had been prepared; in lieu of a meeting, his CoS was asked to provide answers. He refused.

How can leaders be trusted, if they’re not prepared to explain something such as the rationale behind their decision to suddenly make 1 Armd Regt a non-combatant … after 75 years’ service to the nation, crewing tanks? How can there be trust when decisions are made in secret?

One person who commented on a letter I wrote to the Editor of CONTACT said that I was a “a civilian … why would the Chief of Army, or anyone in Army for that matter, tell you anything?”

I responded to say that: “The Commander-in Chief of the Australian Defence Force is the Governor-General. She is accountable to the Australian people through the Commonwealth Parliament. Unlike some other countries, Australia is a democracy in which each individual has the right to question decisions made in their name. Ultimately, governments enact the will of the people.”

Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)

 

FILE PHOTO: Soldiers officers and vehicles of the 1st Armoured Regiment on parade to mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Cambrai. Photo by Corporal Craig Barrett.

.

.


.


.