Why won’t the Chief of Army answer this question?
Why was the need for a unit to evaluate emerging technologies so urgent that it justified demoting Army’s most senior regiment to the status of non-combatant … stripping it not only of its tanks, but also its heritage and traditions?
A further consequence, being that 3 Brigade (Armoured) in Townsville was forced to operate with a significant reduction in combat power (i.e. short a tank squadron, a cavalry squadron and a battlegroup headquarters).
Obviously, there was a reason. But why the secrecy, for heaven’s sake?
On taking office, the CA stated that one of his principal aims was to engender society’s trust in the Army. This is something achieved by consultation and openness, not secrecy. Paradoxically, everything associated with forcing 1st Armoured Regiment to become an experimentation unit, has been cloaked in secrecy.
The only rationale that can be imagined for this, is that Defence anticipated a backlash against the change in the unit’s role and wanted to keep everything as ‘low key’ as possible. That strategy worked. A lot of attention was focussed on the unit itself; making sure that everyone was aware of what an honour it was that it had been chosen for an undertaking of such importance. [Everything, of course, was ‘confidential’ at this stage.]
Veterans who might have expressed outrage at the tanks being stripped from ‘their’ unit, were completely ‘blind-sided’. It took years for everyone to ‘wake up’ to what had happened.
On 15 Jan 25, the 1 Armd Regt Assoc wrote to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, protesting at the tanks being stripped from 1 Armd Regt. The delay in commencing their action was explained thus:
“The question could be asked as to why the Association left it so long before acting. Approximately 16 months ago, the Association was advised by several respected retired Armoured Corps Generals that the decision to re-role 1st Armoured Regiment, would surely be reviewed and that common sense would undoubtedly prevail.
In the meantime, the Association and veterans of 1st Armoured Regiment, should try and remain calm rather than undertake a campaign of advocacy which could inflame a sensitive situation.
That guidance has proven to be in vain and indeed, the structural change recommendation made by the Chief of the Army, to the Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, is even more entrenched.”
The last sentence is simply incredible. How could the CA recommend to the VCDF a position re 1 Armd Regt, that is “even more entrenched”, than whatever was proposed previously? This is what he did, however.
Brig Ted Acutt, Honorary Colonel 1 Armd Regt and Patron, 1 Armd Regt Assoc, has been asked if any further information about the ‘structural change recommendation made by the CA to the VCDF’ can be made available? Sadly, there’s been no response. It seems that secrecy still has a way to run …
Is there a club? When you’re promoted to star rank, does that entail putting Army ‘confidentiality’ first in all things; making a commitment not to compromise matters which might be considered ‘delicate’.
One day, what happened, and why, will all be made known. I predict, when it does, that everyone will shake their heads and ask what all the secrecy was about? Why couldn’t the CA and the VCDF have been open and truthful. What were they afraid of? What pressures were they under? Were their jobs at stake? Would being honest, breach the code?
Ultimately, this is what it’s all about … isn’t it? Survival at the top. Opportunity to go higher.
In the mean-time … let there be a pox on all those who revert to subterfuge and secrecy in place of honesty and openness.
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
.
.
.
