Is frank and fearless advice a thing of the past?

Is the concept of ‘frank and fearless advice’ simply rhetoric; or is it a goal which defines the ideals to which those in Defence (including uniformed members) measure themselves against?  

The Australian Public Service Commission sees it as “providing advice that is relevant and comprehensive, is not affected by fear of consequences, and does not withhold important facts or bad news”.

If it isn’t rhetoric, how is it that:

• The Chief of Army stripped tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment and made it a non-combatant, sacrificing 75 years’ worth of accrued professional skills, heritage, and tradition?
• 2nd Cavalry Regiment is compelled to undertake dual reconnaissance and infantry fire-support roles, although they are incompatible with each other?
• Australia’s only armoured brigade is compelled to go without a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a third battlegroup headquarters, at a time when the nation’s strategic circumstances are ‘most perilous’?

The RAAC was united in its opposition to stripping the tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment.  The serving Representative Honorary Colonel, the Immediate Past Rep Hon Col, the 1 Armd Regt Hon Col, the then RAAC Head of Corps, the RAAC Corps Conference, and the 1 Armd Regt Association, all recommended against it.  Despite this, the CA did it anyway.  (Can there be any question that the Australian Army is Infantry dominated?)

A loss of trust in Army’s senior leadership resulted; BUT the CA got what he wanted (as CAs generally do!).  Loss of trust leads to poor morale.  Ultimately, this weakens combat power and leads to poor recruitment … the last thing the ADF needs!  

One has to wonder, to what degree ‘fear of consequences’ played a part in this, i.e. did everyone tell the CA what they thought he wanted to hear?  The CA wanted a unit to manage the evaluation of new and emerging technologies.  Rather than setting up a new one, he wanted a unit that could ‘hit the ground running’ (i.e. one that could commence in the role immediately, as it was a long overdue need).  1 Armd Regt was based in Adelaide and the South Australian Government was about to launch a promising defence industry initiative.

BUT, the 2023 Defence Strategic Review had designated 3 Brigade (Townsville) to be Army’s sole armoured brigade; the usual structure being a tank regiment, a cavalry regiment and a mechanised infantry battalion.  Rather than 1 Armd Regt heading to T’ville to join 2nd Cavalry Regiment, the CA opted to strip it of its tanks and make it the new ‘technologies’ unit; leaving 3 Brigade short a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a third battlegroup headquarters. 

1 Armd Regt became a non-combatant for the first time ever; tradition and heritage accrued during 75 years’ service to the nation crewing tanks, gone in an instant; the only unit in the Army to be presented with a Standard … as well three battle honours and a Unit Citation for Gallantry.

There was an up-side here for Defence … a desperate need existed to save money in the Defence budget to help pay for the AUKUS submarines.  As a tank regiment, 1 Armd Regt’s operating costs were the highest of any RAAC unit. Any savings here would obviously be a bonus.  Was this a factor in justifying the decision?  

The Chief of Army has advised that, because the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF), Minister for Defence and RAAC Head of Corps have responded to questions about this issue … “we consider the matter closed” (the Royal ‘we’ presumably).  The CA and his Chief of Staff have both declined to accept requests for meetings to allow the hurt felt by former members of 1 Armd Regt to be articulated.  This is obviously too much to ask.

The Minister has been asked what he means when he says that 1 Armd Regt “will be instrumental in the Army’s transformation by directly shaping how the Army fights”.  He has declined to respond, however.

A petition, ‘A Plea to Restore 1st Armoured Regiment’s Combat Role’ was presented to Parliament House, Canberra, on 19 Feb 25.  Parliamentary protocols state that a response from the Minister is to be expected within 90 days.  None has been received.  

As individuals, Australian citizens have limited rights when dealing with the government.  If the Chief of Army and the Minister for Defence decide to ignore representations made to them, then that’s it … no discussion will be entered into! 

The Commander-in-Chief of the ADF is the Governor-General.  She represents the ultimate appeal process.  Sadly, there was no response to a letter written to her in that capacity either.

The saving grace for Australian human rights is the ‘Freedom of the Press’.   Although the government can opt to ignore an issue; it can be highlighted by the media in such a way that everyone becomes aware of the things that have happened.  The public can then make up its own mind and possibly influence government accordingly.  This is democracy in action.

Thank you ‘CONTACT magazine’.  

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

.

.

You are most welcome, Bruce.
I very much admire the tenacity of your campaign in this matter.
I have to wonder if your letters are contributing to CONTACT’s record-breaking readership engagement. CONTACT broke its own record of 7.2million page views months ago and is well on its way to its biggest audience number ever (possibly in the teens of millions!)
Brian Hartigan
CONTACT Editor

.

.

FILE PHOTO: Australian Army soldiers from the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, conduct a trench clearance, supported by 2nd Cavalry Regiment M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, as part of Exercise Brolga Sprint at Townsville Field Training Area, Queensland. Photo by Private Jessica Gray.

.

.


.


.