On the Record
On this page, we set the record straight to correct any inaccuracies in media reporting of Defence issues.
10 November 2009
Sydney Morning Herald
Dear Sir,
Your recent editorial (SMH 9/11/09) “Caught in the mine field” highlighted some issues around mental health care in the Australian Defence Force. The figures used in the editorial are now out of date and the situation has significantly improved in relation to Defence Force Psychology and Mental Health Services since April. Defence has reduced the number of outstanding post deployment psychology screens considerably, and as at the end of June 2009 2600 outstanding post deployment screens had been completed. It is important to note that also during this time Defence has remained effective in meeting the current post deployment screening demand. This means that all Defence personnel who have recently returned from operations have completed their post deployment psychological screening.
A comprehensive report into ADF Mental Health Services was completed in May 2009, and all the recommendations of the report were fully or partially accepted. Implementation of these recommendations is underway with the first priority being expansion of the mental health workforce as well as the establishment of multi-disciplinary mental health teams. With this additional workforce, I am confident the back log of post deployment psychological screening will be eliminated by February 2010. We now have a greater ability to effectively respond to the wide variety of mental health concerns that occur and we continue to work closely with our allies and as well as conducting our own research, ensuring that we maintain world’s best practice principles for mental health care.
Yours Sincerely
Original Signed
P.V. ALEXANDER
Major General
Commander
Joint Health
23 October 2009
The Editor
The Herald-Sun
Andrew Bolt’s editorial concerning the investigation into misconduct claims on board HMAS Success (Navy credibility in the balance as three deny sex ledger claim – Friday 23 October 2009) is misleading, emotive and inaccurate. I believe it is important to remind the Australian public and Navy’s people of the facts surrounding this case.
The administrative and disciplinary investigations into the issues associated with HMAS Success have yet to hand down their findings, but the allegations being investigated continue to cause Navy serious concern.
The Commanding Officer of HMAS Success was presented with sufficient information relating to alleged inappropriate behaviour to warrant him to initiate investigations in April 2009. A number of serious allegations had been raised by crew members. Given the nature of the allegations and in accordance with his obligations as the Commanding Officer, he had no option other than to act. He acted in a positive and forthright manner, landing four personnel during a visit to Singapore in early May. This action was taken to ensure the welfare and safety of his crew, whilst ensuring that subsequent inquiries would not be prejudiced and procedural fairness was afforded to all personnel involved. Appropriate support has been provided to HMAS Success’ ship’s company throughout the investigation.
It is also important to note that at the existence of a “sex ledger” was speculation generated by the media from late June 2009, well after the positive actions taken in HMAS Success. Navy made that point quite clear when responding to these media inquiries, advising that the veracity of such allegations was yet to be confirmed and that all issues raised were being considered in the investigations that were underway at the time.
Navy cannot operate as an effective fighting force, while also being a people focused organisation, unless each of our members is afforded procedural fairness and treated decently. The New Generation Navy reform program that I launched earlier this year is very clear on how I expect Navy people to be treated, with particular regard to respecting the contribution of every individual and promoting the wellbeing and development of Navy people. Notably, I require personnel in supervisory roles to lead by example on developing and perpetuating this culture in their units.
I am very proud of Navy’s strong positive reputation in the community. The Australian people rightly expect Navy personnel to live by a higher standard. This is particularly relevant to those in positions of authority, who are obliged to ensure the highest standards of behaviour are maintained at all times by those who serve, whether on or off duty. Sometimes this is difficult but it is the way it must be.
R.H. Crane
Vice Admiral, RAN
Chief of Navy
7 October 2009
Editor
Herald sun
I write in response to the inaccurate editorial "Our troops deserve better" (6 October).
You make a number of assertions that are not true. The currently issued body armour, known as modular combat body armour system (MCBAS by the soldiers) was developed to counter specific threats and is the best physical protection available. In October last year Australian troops began mentoring and liaison operations with the Afghan National Army which has necessitated individuals being more agile to manoeuvre in the field, essentially to keep up with their Afghan counterparts on patrol. This ability to manoeuvre, along with the physical protection offered by the body armour, provides the overall protection required by troops engaged in this type of operation. There are many of our soldiers for whom MCBAS is still the most appropriate option, particularly if involved in sedentary duties.
There is no connection between the death of Corporal Mathew Hopkins and the change to wearing lighter body armour. And lighter armour has been worn by the mentoring and liaison teams since the arrival of Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force 2 in June this year. The lighter armour was quickly obtained after we identified the requirement, and particularly before the hot weather began in Afghanistan. We have the next version of body armour being trialled now, to be sure it is effective for the current task, and it will be available in Afghanistan when proven.
You do nothing more than upset the families of our soldiers operating in Afghanistan by editorials such as this. We have the best soldiers in world and the best equipped in Afghanistan. Everyone in Defence and in Army are committed to ensuring our soldiers remain that way.
MAJGEN John Caligari
Acting Chief of Army
29 September 2009
Editor
Herald Sun
In response to your article “Army should be ashamed” (29 September 09), I write to inform your readers that Army uses everything within its power to support families who have lost a loved one on Active Service.
Defence remains committed to providing Mrs Bree Till with the ongoing support she requires to deal with the emotional and financial effects of losing her husband. This is a very difficult time for Sergeant Till’s family, and Mrs Till has handled her loss, under very difficult circumstances, with great dignity. She continues to have my personal support as well as that from the wider Defence community.
Every bereavement process is difficult. Bereavement support has both financial and non financial dimensions. It is highly complex and seeks to meet the needs of individual families. This complexity necessitates that we deal with the specific circumstances of each family compassionately and respectfully. In addition to the financial support, Army and the Defence Community Organisation remain committed to providing a range of non-financial support to Mrs Till. This includes regular contact by social workers, and the command team and mates from Sergeant Till’s regiment.
I am disappointed with your journalist’s objection to the term sacrifice being used to describe the death of one of my soldiers. I believe the selfless actions of Sergeant Brett Till, and every other ADF member who has been killed or wounded while serving Australia, exemplifies the very meaning of the word sacrifice.
I’m also surprised that your newspaper felt it was appropriate to allow your journalist to use Mrs Till’s current circumstances, and death of her husband, as a platform to voice her opinions regarding Afghanistan.
As Chief of Army, I am extremely proud of the courage, dedication and honour continually demonstrated by our soldiers serving overseas on operations, and here in Australia. I hope that this is also the case for the majority of your readers.
Lieutenant General K. Gillespie
Chief of Army
26th September 2009
Dear Editor,
I wish to respond to The Australian’s page 1 story today: ‘The 83 injured Diggers who became invisible’.
I take issue with your inaccurate reporting that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is deliberately trying to hide the number of ADF personnel wounded in Afghanistan and the seriousness of their wounds.
As I have said publicly many times as Chief of the Defence Force, it is my intention to be as open and transparent with the Australian public and media as possible, without compromising the security of our troops and our operations.
The ADF makes no apology for protecting the privacy of soldiers who have been seriously wounded. It is our belief that in such circumstances the health and recovery of the wounded person must be the number one priority.
Of those who have been seriously wounded in Afghanistan, the majority have been from Special Forces. These soldiers have protected identity status and the exact nature of their missions cannot be disclosed.
Regardless, it is ADF policy to report to the Australian public incidents in which personnel are wounded as result of enemy action and we provide the media, as we did with journalist Paul Toohey, the latest figures on how many Australian soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan since 2005.
“Silence” is not the official policy as your paper reports.
Most of our people and their families do not want media intrusion at a time when focussing on recovery from life-threatening wounds is paramount. To hold a media conference around a hospital bed at such a time would be extremely insensitive.
In time, those wounded in battle may wish to share their stories publicly and some do. This, however, is a very personal decision and a choice that the ADF has no right to make.
Whether someone tells their story or not, does not diminish the selfless sacrifice they have made or the tremendous respect we have for all of them.
Yours sincerely,
[Signed]
Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, AC, AFC
The Chief of the Defence Force
14 September 2009
In response to the Sunday Mail Adelaide, 13 September 2009:
There are many incorrect statements in Mr Peter Goers’ article of Sunday, 13 September, in the Sunday Mail Adelaide.
The Royal Australian Air Force is concerned that Mr Goers has inappropriately used the solemn occasion of Flying Officer Michael Herbert’s funeral to air ill-informed opinion, without providing the public the benefit of balanced information.
As Air Force staff informed Mr Goers prior to his article, the media arrangements for the funeral of Flying Officer Herbert were made in full consultation with family representatives.
As always, Defence aims to provide ready access to the media for significant events but not at the price of undue pressure on grieving families and friends. The media were aware of access arrangements prior to the funeral.
The Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Mark Binskin AM, was proud to attend all the ceremonies and funerals, as is his solemn responsibility.
With regard to the search for and recovery of Flying Officer Herbert and Pilot Officer Robert Carver, the article fails to acknowledge the significant research and work undertaken by a large Defence team, tasked by Chief of Air Force.
While Air Force readily acknowledges the passion and commitment of Operation Aussies Home, the repatriation of our last two Vietnam airmen could not have happened without the extensive research conducted by the Army History Unit, Defence Science and Technology Organisation modelling, and the other skills of our expert Air Force team.
26 August 2009
The Editor
The Australian
Dear Sir,
I am writing to raise concern regarding Mark Dodd's use of the term 'officially sanctioned
assassination' in his article, 'Taliban boss killed by Diggers,' in today's Australian.
I have discusd with Mark previously Defence's concerns regarding the use of the term
'assassination' in relation to operations conducted by members of the Australian Defence
Force. The term 'assassination' is both pejorative md inaccurate in describing the actions of
Australian soldiers in Afghanistan.
Members of the Australian Defence Force operate under strict Rules of Engagement designed
to protect our troops on operations, while ensuring that the actions of Australian forces are
consistent with our obligations under Australian and international law in protecting the lives
and property of the innocent.
Australia's Rules of Engagement are designd to avoid civilian casualties and damage to
civilian infrastructure but also to provide suitable protection for our troops.
I ask that in future your newspaper take more care in describing the actions of members of
the Australian Defence Force deployed on operations.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Dawson
Brigadier
Director General Public Affairs
22nd July 2009
Dear Sir / Madam,
A report on Lateline last night (21 July 2009) stated that the ADF had previously denied any role in the death of an Afghan woman in April but that I had now admitted this was a mistake.
The connection drawn by your reporter led your viewers to believe that the ADF had misled the public over this incident and that it was now admitting it was responsible for the woman’s death. This is not the case. There is no conclusive evidence which proves that this person’s death was the result of ADF action and, indeed, the death could have been the result of Taliban fire.
I clearly stated at a Media Roundtable yesterday that: “On the 30th of April, during an Afghan National Army led operation to clear a number of compounds suspected of being used for facilitating improvised-explosive manufacture, Afghan and Australian soldiers’ encountered two groups of armed Taliban insurgents. These groups were engaged with small arms and the insurgents relocated. They were subsequently re-engaged by Close Air Support. The engagements resulted in a number of Taliban being killed. During the course of the clearance operation, a number of women and children were found within the compounds. An adult woman and child were also found with multiple injuries. It is not known what caused the wounds but they were similar to fragmentation wounds. Australian troops provided immediate first aid and the two injured civilians were evacuated by helicopter for further treatment. The woman subsequently died as a result of her wounds. The clearance of the compounds led to the identification and removal of weapons, ammunition and farm-fertiliser that is used in improvised explosive devices. Defence conducted an internal review of the circumstances of the incident. It found that ADF personnel acted within their Rules of Engagement.”
I went on to say: “While this matter was the subject of an ISAF media release, the ADF mistakenly did not provide a public update when the women succumbed to her injuries and died. As already mentioned, we are tightening our reporting protocols in order to ensure there is no repeat.”
I was making the point that it was mistaken of the ADF not to put on the public record the fact that a woman had died as a result of injuries sustained during a compound clearance in which ADF troops and Taliban insurgents had engaged each other. I was not saying that previous Defence comment which stated that it was inconclusive that ADF may have caused that casualty was incorrect. I believe the public should have been informed of this women’s death and I outlined yesterday new Defence procedures to ensure that any civilian casualty incidents and allegations are reported publicly. My comments were in no way an admission that the ADF was responsible for the woman’s death.
I would appreciate a correction.
Yours sincerely,
Angus Houston, AC, AFC
Air Chief Marshal
Chief of the Defence Force
29 June 2009
Letter to the Editor - Weekend Australian, 27-28 June 09
Dear Editor,
Your article in the Weekend Australian 27-28 June, (credit spree was ‘navy culture’) by Drew Warne-Smith is inaccurate. The circumstances in relation to Geoffrey Smith are a matter of ongoing inquiry for the Independent Commission Against Corruption and I will not add speculation while this important investigative body is in the middle of its review. I do however take exception to the quite ridiculous suggestion by the unnamed source that our Navy’s senior officer’s culture breeds a dangerous sense of entitlement. There are strict rules around the use of credit cards in Defence and there are procedures in place to monitor usage and ensure compliance. Where appropriate, individuals are subject to disciplinary or administrative proceedings for non-compliance. All Navy personnel are required to undertake regular fraud awareness training. Our people accept this because they understand responsibility and ethics and that the nature and demands of the job that they do for our country places higher expectations upon them.
Command at sea has nothing to do with entitlements; it is about responsibility and leadership, particularly given the complex operational context in which our people today contribute to our national security. Sea command is the most demanding assignment in the Navy and is not taken on by those seeking so-called entitlements, rather by those officers who demonstrate solid leadership qualities and accept the responsibility and burden of a job that is unique and special.
The fundamental importance of responsibility and leadership is at the heart of our Navy culture. Your readers can be proud of their Navy.
Yours sincerely
R. H. Crane VADM, RAN
Chief of Navy
12 June 2009
Letter to the Editor - Daily Telegraph, 11 June 09
Dear Editor
There were a number of errors of fact in Mr Ian McPhedran’s article in your newspaper on page 7 titled ‘Meals the real deal as submarine cooks earn far more than the SAS’.
These errors may have been the result of misinterpreting the salary and allowance information available on the public record, and arise from assuming that allowances are available to all personnel all the time at the maximum rate. There are also ‘one off’ allowances and retention bonuses that require a return of service obligation and are only available for a fixed time.
For example Navy’s submariners receive either the Submarine Service Allowance if posted to a seagoing submarine, or Sea Going Allowance if posted to a seagoing ship – never both. These allowances also are paid in a sliding scale depending on years of sea time.
The figures Mr McPhedran quotes are correct for the 6-11 years sea service bracket, however an Able Seaman submariner would normally be paid the $15,953 per year submarine service allowance, not the $48,957 proposed by Mr McPhedran.
While submarine cooks are designated a critical category and there is an individual retention bonus of up to $50,000 per year, none of our cooks have ever been offered the bonus at this rate. The maximum paid to submarine cooks has been $20,000 per year with an obligation to serve for a period of two years.
Similarly submarine sailors are eligible for the Navy Capability Allowance of $60,000 paid over a period of 18 months for effective service, otherwise payments are forfeited. Applications for this allowance close in 2010. All the return of service obligations for these temporary allowances and bonuses are cumulative.
A submarine has one Leading Seaman cook and one Able Seaman cook.
Without the temporary retention bonuses, typically an Able Seaman cook will receive $67,429 per year or $83,382 if posted to a seagoing submarine. Similarly, a Leading Seaman cook on promotion receives pay without bonuses of $71,663 or typically $93,917 if posted to a seagoing submarine.
If eligible, sailors might also receive a critical category bonus in return for undertaking a further service period of up to two years. If eligible they might also receive the ‘once only’ Navy Capability Allowance in return for further service of 18 months.
In short, Submarine cooks posted to seagoing submarines do not earn more than their rank equivalents in the SAS who are operationally deployed – let alone those of superior rank.
D.R. THOMAS
Rear Admiral, RAN
Deputy Chief of Navy
26 May 2009
Letter To the Editor – ‘Adelaide Advertiser’ 21 May 09, ‘Herald Sun’ 22 May 09
Dear Editor
I refer to Mr Ian McPhedran’s article titled ‘Substandard – just one sub left to patrol our 36,000km coastline’ on page 5 of your 21 May 2009 edition (Adelaide Advertiser) ‘Subs sink to new depths – security fears and a multi-million –dollar bill’ on page 28 of your 22 May 2009 edition(Herald Sun).
Unfortunately Mr McPhedran’s statements about the availability of our submarines for operations and their current maintenance activities are misleading.
These misperceptions may arise from a misunderstanding of the management of submarines within their maintenance cycle and the meaning of unit ready days.
HMAS Farncomb is not “our only seaworthy submarine”. HMAS Collins is presently at sea conducting work-up and is available for operational tasking within its readiness notice. Collins is not “out of active service” as stated. HMAS Waller is not “tied up for urgent battery repairs”, but is undergoing a routine maintenance docking.
It is important to note that the force structure of six submarines is designed to allow two submarines to be deployed to operations at relatively short notice, two to be kept at longer notice (conducting training or maintenance) to allow force rotation and the final two in deeper-level maintenance and upgrade to allow sustainment of the capability over the longer term.
These broad principles of readiness, rotation and sustainment apply to all ADF capabilities, and are common to Navies and military forces worldwide. Submarine force activity levels, manning and maintenance are managed in the short term to ensure that the capability is sustainable over the long term and is able to surge to higher activity levels in the future, if directed by Government. It is clear therefore that in a force structure of six submarines there will never be six at sea at the same time.
Submarine crewing shortages have had a negative impact on activity levels in the submarine force. Longer-term sustainability of the submarine workforce is currently more important than short-term crewing of all submarines.
There are three submarines that are currently sustainably crewed, operating in various parts of their maintenance cycle and available for deployment within their readiness notice if required. There are a further three submarines in or awaiting long term maintenance. One of these will complete long term maintenance and return to operations early next year, and another will commence its maintenance. Long-term maintenance and upgrade provides the sustainability needed to keep the submarines deployed in a rotating pattern if required by Government in the future.
Unit ready days are forecast by the Submarine Force Element Group based on the number of submarines that are crewed and materially available for sea. Recent and current projections are directly related to well-known personnel shortages, but also vary with the amount of maintenance planned during each financial year. FY09/10 URD forecast is higher that FY08/09 simply because the operating submarines are scheduled for less docking maintenance in this year.
This submarine crewing situation has been stabilised and is expected to trend up with the implementation of remedial measures I recently announced.
The defence of Australia is the primary task of the Submarine force and I can assure you that Navy takes this seriously and is managing submarine activity closely to deliver the right balance of short-term readiness and long-term sustainability.
Yours sincerely
R.H. CRANE, AM, CSM
Vice Admiral, RAN
Chief of Navy
26 May 2009
Letter To the Editor, ‘Herald Sun’ 23 May 09
To the Editor
A number of points made in your article “Accused lashed out” on page 15 of the Herald Sun on Saturday 23 May 2009, compel me to respond on behalf of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).
As the circumstances of the incident involving the officer are still subject to court proceedings I am not at liberty to discuss those details specifically.
However, I can confirm that the officer involved in the reported incident was not on a ‘pre-retirement junket’, nor was he engaged in ‘poaching’ personnel from the Royal Navy. LCDR George is participating in a legitimate visit to the United Kingdom endorsed by me to expedite the administration of personnel from the Royal Navy who have previously applied to join the RAN under the auspices of an established lateral entry program.
As the Staff Officer Overseas Appointments, LCDR George has been the main point of contact for this program and is central to its success. He is an officer who has already given many years of valuable service to the RAN, and he has the capacity and commitment to serve the Navy until his current Compulsory Retirement Age (60 yrs) and beyond.
The RAN’s lateral entry program operates under a labour agreement between the ADF and the Commonwealth, represented by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). This program enables the recruitment of specific occupational groups specified within that agreement to enter the ADF. The current arrangement and its predecessors have been in place now for a considerable number of years. It essentially provides a mechanism to fill gaps within the ADF workforce which cannot otherwise be filled. Applicants have previously entered from the UK, Canada, the United States of America, New Zealand and a number of other nations.
Staff from the Navy’s career management agencies first visited the United Kingdom in March 2007. Following on from the success of the 2007 visit, a team is currently deployed to the UK to assess candidates’ background/qualifications and skills to ensure the applicants are of the appropriate calibre and to accelerate the entry process into the RAN by providing them with specific and detailed information about lateral entry and immigration processes.
As the RAN already has a large number of applicants for this program, the focus of the current team in the UK is to concentrate on existing applicants rather than attracting new ones. The Royal Navy 1st has been briefed on the intent of this current visit, which I consider to be a key element of the New Generation Navy plan to expeditiously resolve RAN personnel shortfalls prior to the introduction of new maritime capabilities foreshadowed at the latest Defence White Paper.
R.H. CRANE, AM, CSMVice Admiral, RAN
Chief of Navy
Letter to the Editor, Hobart Mercury
In reference to the story title "Stoush over air control upgrade" published on Tuesday 5 May (Page 9), I would like to set the record straight on several issues.
Defence and Airservices Australia have an excellent working relationship. Together we established Project Genesis to investigate the viability of integrating some aspects of military and civil air traffic control. Some of the initiatives proved neither viable, nor value for money for Defence or Airservices Australia and were not able to be progressed. However, many underpinning concepts have been embraced and developed in the Defence Air Traffic Control Reform Program.
Defence remains committed to the continued development of a seamless national air traffic management system that is interoperable and interfaced to facilitate maximum safety, efficiency and flexibility for both military and civilian aviation within Australian airspace.
There are major differences between Defence and civil Air Traffic Control. Military airspace management is primarily concerned with national security and is focussed on the management of airspace in a complex, contested or deployed environment. Australian military Air Traffic Controllers have provided vital support in Iraq, East Timor, Somalia, Banda Aceh and the Solomon Islands. Civil airspace management is primarily concerned with the provision of Air Traffic Services in a benign environment and is provided on a commercial basis.
Air Force is firmly committed to continue finding efficiencies where possible. However, it is in Defence's and Australia's interests that a robust national and operationally deployable military Air Traffic Control capability is maintained.
Air Marshal Mark Binskin
Chief of Air Force
5 May 2009
02 April 2009
Glenn Burge
The Editor
Australian Financial Review
200 Sussex Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Amid much inaccurate reporting this week on Defence, your editorial of 31 March is way off track. It is based on a set of false premises.
Despite your editorial’s assertion that “rogue intelligence specialists” are spying on the Minister for Defence, it remains the case that we have seen no evidence to back this claim. The investigation by the Defence Security Authority is continuing and we look forward to the report of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security into this matter.
We can also assure you that our relationship is anything but “dysfunctional”. In fact we have an extremely close and effective working relationship, which even the most cursory inquiry by your editorial writer would have found.
We collaborate very closely on all key Defence decisions and policy recommendations, as we do with our Ministers and the Government more generally. It has underpinned the development of a reform program for Defence that will modernise our military forces and our management systems.
Yours sincerely
[SIGNED]
Nick Warner
Secretary
April 2009
[SIGNED]
A. G. HOUSTON AC, AFC
Air Chief Marshal
Chief of the Defence Force
April 2009
02 March 2009
Dear Editor,
I wish to respond to the article ‘A case of rank service’ by Mike O’Connor published in your newspaper today.
The article is inaccurate and I believe the public record needs to be corrected.
Mike O'Connor claims that Army did nothing in regards to the Special Forces pay issue and that it lied to the Minister for Defence. This is not true.
Defence has been working hard on rectifying the Special Forces pay issue since it was first raised at the Estimates hearings of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade last October.
At the time, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Army undertook to investigate and resolve the problem, and steps were taken to implement the Minister’s direction to cease debt recovery.
The welfare of ADF members is Defence’s highest priority. Suggestions that Defence does not care about its soldiers and that, somehow, it would purposefully place its members in financial hardship are ridiculous.
As explained last week at the latest Senate Estimates hearings, the issues surrounding changes to the administration of Special Forces pay are complex.
The Chief of Army issued a directive that clearly lays out the plan and milestones to remediate all Special Forces trade competencies and pay anomalies. This document is publicly available on the Defence website at: www.defence.gov.au/publications/CA_Directive_06_09-SF_Remuneration_Remediation.pdf
It states there is no longer any debt incurred as a result of the implementation of these Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal determinations. Soldiers will be remunerated at the same levels they were before the implementation of the determinations. Any soldier who has previously had money deducted through this process will have that money reimbursed.
I can assure the Australian public, Defence is working to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.
Further, Mike O’Connor also asserts that the Chief of the Defence Force was forced to travel to a Conference in Hawaii on Jetstar.
The Chief of the Defence Force chose to fly Jetstar as it was the most timely and convenient service available which enabled him to meet his duties and responsibilities.
Yours sincerely,
[SIGNED]
B.R. DAWSON
BRIGADIER
DIRECTOR GENERAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS
02 March 2009
Letter to the Editor – Newcastle Herald
The story “Radar display off for a week” published on 27 February selectively quoted information regarding air traffic management at RAAF Williamtown during the military operational stand-by period.
The story did not include two very important facts that were provided to the Newcastle Herald on 23 February.
Firstly, the Certified Air/Ground Radio System does not rely on radar situational awareness in order to operate safely and effectively.
Secondly, while one radar was shut down for a short period for vital scheduled servicing, your story did not include the fact that RAAF personnel operating the CA/GRS had access to three other radar feeds.
Therefore, at no stage was public safety compromised.
Williamtown is a military airfield and Air Force personnel continue to provide quality air traffic control services.
Air Marshal Mark Binskin
Chief of Air Force
27 February 2009
20 January 2009
Editor
Daily Telegraph
In reference to your article “No armour for VC hero” (20 January 2009), I write to clarify that Trooper Mark Donaldson VC was wearing body armour during the ambush on 2 September 2008.
As Chief of Army, I can assure your readers that the body armour our soldiers use is of world class.
Ken Gillespie
Lieutenant General
Chief of Army
20 January 2009
Editor
Herald Sun
In reference to your article “Light VC hero” (20 January 2009), I write to clarify that Trooper Mark Donaldson VC was wearing body armour during the ambush on 2 September 2008.
As Chief of Army, I can assure your readers that the body armour our soldiers use is of world class.
Ken Gillespie
Lieutenant General
Chief of Army
20 January 2009
Editor
Adelaide Advertiser
In reference to your article “No body armour” (20 January 2009), I write to clarify that Trooper Mark Donaldson VC was wearing body armour during the ambush on 2 September 2008.
As Chief of Army, I can assure your readers that the body armour our soldiers use is of world class.
Ken Gillespie
Lieutenant General
Chief of Army
20 January 2009
Editor
Hobart Mercury
In reference to your article “VC hero fought without body armour” (20 January 2009), I write to clarify that Trooper Mark Donaldson VC was wearing body armour during the ambush on 2 September 2008.
As Chief of Army, I can assure your readers that the body armour our soldiers use is of world class.
Ken Gillespie
Lieutenant General
Chief of Army
15 January 2009
The Editor, The Australian
ARTICLE DATED 15 JANUARY 2009 – WAR TRAUMA OVERLOOKED
I refer to your article of the 15th of January concerning PTSD in ADF members returning from active service. Your article refers to a lack of consistency in the academic literature for the use of cut-offs for PTSD diagnosis using the current screening tool. Your article also suggests between 57 and 95 extra members would undergo a psychological assessment if the threshold were lowered. These claims are taken in isolation and ignore the comprehensive ADF processes for the screening, assessment and treatment of PTSD and other mental health conditions.
The ADF uses a comprehensive suite of tools including post-deployment one-on-one interviews conducted by mental health providers to identify personnel at risk. This is conducted on two separate occasions.
The reviewed cut-offs to which you refer do not constitute a clinical assessment of PTSD; they are simply a guide for the mental health provider. They indicate that it would be prudent to conduct further examination of the individual who may be at risk of a mental health condition, not just PTSD. The mental health provider always utilises an extensive array of additional information gathered during the interview process along with individual item responses from multiple assessment tools.
The ADF continuously reviews its mental health strategy to ensure it reflects advances in the management of mental health conditions. These reviews are done internally and also by independent external experts. Indeed, the ADF’s Mental Health Strategy has been independently assessed to compare favourably with mental health strategies in military forces in other countries and in other Australian workplaces.
The ADF has close links with the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health (ACPMH) to ensure its policies reflect national best practice
Yours sincerely
Paul Alexander
Major General
Surgeon General Australian Defence Force
Review Letters to the Editor for 2008
Review Letters to the Editor for 2007