Upgrade the Australian
Service Medal (Special Operations) to the Australian Active Service
Medal - Recognition of Submarine Operations
As most of you know, Rob Woolrych (CMDR MBE RAN Ret’d) been tireless in
his pursuit of recognition for submariners that have been on operational
patrols. The following two email were sent to Members of the
Queensland Branch of the Association. Rob is always careful not to
raise the expectations of those that served, but remains positive that
one day the battle will be won.
Email dated 16 September 2008
I have this day spoken with the President of the Naval Association of
Australia Mr Les Dwyer and I have also received an email from him
explaining to me what he is doing in Canberra in support of our quest
for proper recognition.
Firstly a little background; recently I went to Canberra and presented
our case for proper recognition to the new Minister for Defence Science
and Technology and Personnel, Hon. Warren Snowdon MP, bringing to his
attention some of the detail I had submitted over the past 10 years.
Just to-day the President of the Naval Association Australia is back in
Canberra and has apparently been having dialogue with senior Defence
personnel up to the level of Vice Chief of Navy and Vice Chief of the
Defence Force. In simple terms he is being given the run around with VCN
saying the submissions are with Parliament House, Parliament House
saying the submissions are with VCDF and VCDF saying the submissions are
with Navy.
The NAA President is in a revolving door.!!! The change of Government
has not helped as much of past correspondence was apparently destroyed
or not actioned prior to the changeover.
The arguments apparently being used against us, if applied to other arms
of the ADF would mean the Pilots/Divers/SAS and for that matter any
person serving in the ADF would not get any recognition.
It is the old story which I first heard in 1963 - “you can always
recognize a submariner because he does not wear any medals”. Things have
changed considerably since that time and the rest of the ADF is being
recognized for “warlike” operations whilst the submariners are not.
It makes me understand now why we do not have sufficient personnel
volunteering for Submarine service if this is the way the work
submariners do in service of their country is to be treated.
The NAA President is still in Canberra and is still fighting our battle
for us. I know you all appreciate what he is doing for we submariners
and I know that SAA Qld Inc is right behind his every move.
Email dated 20 September 2008
My thanks to all of you Queenslanders who have been in dialogue via
email etc to the Minister of Defence Science, Technology and Personnel
and the Minister for Veterans Affairs. The support people have given has
been well put together whilst keeping in mind the sensitivity of our
work.
Every bit of support we can muster helps.
Further to my last message, as a result of The President of the Naval
Association’s (Mr Les Dwyer) persistence in Navy Office and Defence, the
documentation has been found and I hope most sincerely that we will see
some progress on the matter in the not too distant future. The Naval
Association has been wonderful in their support of this cause.
For too long the submariners who, during the “Cold War” period and in
subsequent years thereafter, went about their work in a quiet dedicated
manner have been ignored and I believe people are slowly beginning to
realize this fact.
Once again thanks for the support.
Rob Woolrych
CMDR MBR RAN Ret’d
23rd May 2002
On the 23rd May 2002 the President Barry Nobes, Secretary Peter Smith and I met with the Committee for the Review of Veterans Entitlements, we presented our case to have Submarine Service determined as ‘qualifying service’ or at least ‘hazardous service’ under the Veterans Entitlement Act 1986 thus allowing all submariners access to the repatriation system.
The same afternoon saw Rob Woolrych, Mick Dunne, Fred Fisher and Bert Hooper (GS spook) with Barry Nobes as an observer; present the case to upgrade the Australian Service Medal (Special Operations) to the Australian Active Service Medal (Special Operations) for the work done by RAN Submarines during the period 1978 to 1992.
Both submissions were well received and the fact that members of the committee had listened intently and asked genuine questions concerning conditions of service and health matters was encouraging.
The committee accepted our invitation to visit Onslow and this should take place sometime in July and also indicated the possibility of a second meeting should further details be required.
As Rob Woolrych has pointed out there are still hoops we have to jump through and rivers we have to cross, before we can hope for any recognition. There may be surveys to fill out or questionnaires to complete, so be patient and if information is requested give freely and quickly.
Everyone should be aware that nothing will happen over night, the committees report is not due to be tabled until mid November. This will give the Government time to consider its recommendations in the context of the 2003 federal budget, so as you can see its sit and wait.
I encourage all members to lobby their Federal Member loud and often.
(Extract from Coordinators Report to SUBCON 2002)
General Peter Cosgrove AC MC
Chief of the Defence Force
Russell Offices
CANBERRA ACT 2600
15 June 2003
SUBMARINE SPECIAL OPERATIONS 1978 TO 1992 – RECOGNITION AS ACTIVE SERVICE
Dear General Cosgrove,
As National President of the Submarines Australia Association I have been charged by unanimous vote at the Association’s Annual General Meeting held at the National Maritime Museum in Sydney on 8 June 2003, to ask you to have the matter of granting the Australian Active Service Medal to individuals in the ships’ companies of submarines that participated in “Special Operations” (1978-1992) reconsidered.
I know that you have received three letters from CMDR R. H. Woolrych MBE RAN (Rtd)
regarding this matter. The facts as stated in those letters are correct and the sentiments
expressed are endorsed and strongly supported. This request is also supported by
a number of other authorities and individuals, including at least one former Chief
of Naval Staff and other retired senior naval officers,
the National President of the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council, and
the National President of the Naval Association of Australia.
As stated in the letters the operations were authorised at the highest level and conducted in accordance with a joint USA/UK/Australia agreement dating from 1977 under very tight security. The work was known to very few in Government, Defence and Navy. The missions were conducted as “war patrols” and the tasks undertaken by these submarines are considered by many to be among the most hazardous ever undertaken by RAN seagoing units for many decades. It is believed that few, if any, currently serving officers in the Navy and other Defence Service offices have any deep or indeed relevant knowledge of these operations, and almost none will have the required security clearance. Thus it seems likely that consideration given to this request has been without sufficient depth of knowledge and consequently you may have been poorly advised. It may be that face-to-face briefing from participants of these patrols would be of value to you or your delegate. A small group of these officers and men briefed the Clarke Committee, which declared the matter was outside their brief.
Care must be exercised in handling this proposal, I am aware, because of our national obligations to the other joint signatories, the USA and the UK, and the potential embarrassment to politicians and both major political parties who agreed to and authorised these operations. The seeming reluctance of the Defence Department to give due deliberation to this request relies on the loyalty of hundreds of individuals, few of whom know the whole story but many of whom are now upset and might take unwise or precipitate action.
I urge you, Sir, to reconsider your decision in the best interests of justice and fair treatment to a group of the very best citizens and hard-working servicemen who performed their duties in hazardous and trying circumstances when it seemed that their tasks were of the great importance to the nation in the era of the ‘Cold War’.
Yours sincerely,
Barry Nobes,
Captain RAN (Rtd)
National President SAA
26th August 2003
Dear Captain Nobes,
Thank you for your letter of 15 June 2003. In your letter you ask that I have the matter of granting the Australian Active Service Medal (AASM) to individuals in the ships’ companies of submarines that participated in "Special operations" (1979-1992 reconsidered.
First and foremost, I wish to allay an concerns you may have that requests for review of this matter have been made without sufficient depth of knowledge and that I may have been poorly advised. Rather, my reviewing officers have very deep and relevant personal knowledge of these operations, with several having participated in many of them and in their direct support. In addition, leaders and senior staff at Naval Headquarters, Defence Headquarters and at the Strategic Operations Division have the required security clearances to access all necessary records to assist in our deliberations. I am entirely confident that the correct depth, level and relevance of knowledge has been applied to this matter.
Further, I assure you that there has been no reluctance to the Defence Department to give due deliberations to this request. I am deeply interested in veterans’ entitlements and appropriate reward for service given. I am also intensely aware of the valuable service provided by RAN submariners, past and present, and the difficult nature of service in submarines. Similarly the staff assigned to review this matter are committed to getting the best result for individuals ethically and legally allowable within the regulations and within the constraints of a wider system which is fair for all.
As you are aware this matter has been reviewed several times by Government and defence, most recently, as part of the 1999/2000 review of Service Entitlement Anomalies, by the 2002 ‘Clarke’ Committee, by Chiefs of Service Committee and by CN. In addition each submission, such as yours and those of CMDR R.H. Woolrych MBE RAN (Rtd), is examined separately and on its merits.
As you know, the consideration of which award is appropriate, be it an AASM or an Australian Service Medal (ASM), hinges on the definitions of ‘warlike operations’ and ‘non-warlike operations’, under current regulations.
Warlike operations are those military activities where the applications
of force is authorised to pursue specific military objectives and there is an expectation
of casualties. These operations can encompass but are not limited to:
a. a state of declared war;
b. conventional combat operations against an armed adversary ; and
c. Peace Enforcement Operations which are military operations in support of diplomatic
efforts to restore peace between belligerents who may not be consenting to intervention
and may be engaged in combat activities.
Non-warlike operations are defined as military activities short of warlike
operations where there is risk associated with the assigned task and where the application
of force is limited to self-defence. Casualties could occur but are not expected.
These operations encompass but are not limited to hazardous activities exposing individuals
or units to a degree of hazard above and beyond that of normal peacetime duty.
Having examined the conditions of the submarine operations to which you refer, reviewing
officers have determined that the nature of these patrols was not warlike because:
- The application of force was not authorised (except under normal peace-time rules
of self-defence).
- There was no expectation of casualties.
- There was no state of declared war.
- There were no conventional combat operations against an armed adversary.
- They were not Peace Enforcement Operations.
Reviewing officers have further determined that the award of ASM clasp
‘Special Ops’ on the basis of the operations being non-warlike is appropriate in
that the patrols were:
- Military activities, short of warlike operations, where there was risk associated
with the assigned task and where the application of force was limited to self-defence;
- Because casualties could have occurred but were not expected; and
- Because these operations constituted hazardous activities which exposed individuals
and units to a degree of hazard above that of normal peacetime duty.
I acknowledge that some of your members may feel they have ‘missed out’ or that their efforts have not received sufficient recognition. I would also point out that the Australian Service Medal clasp ‘Special Ops’ is not an insignificant award and one for which your members can be justifiably proud.
I regret that I can be of no further assistance to you in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Peter Cosgrove
General
Chief of the Defence Force
26 August 2003
5th September 2003
Commentary by Captain Barry Nobes, National President, Submarines Association
Australia
References: a. Captain Nobes letter to General Cosgrove dated 15 June, 2003
b. General Cosgrove reply dated 26 August, 2003.
I have received a reply from CDF, General Cosgrove - In it he addresses our arguments
and also our accusation that consideration of our request has been inadequate.
On this last point he reassures us that here is no reluctance in the Defence Department to give due deliberation to this request. He seeks to reassure us that far from being inadequate, his and the Defence Department’s consideration has been deep and relevant and has included officers from Navy, Defence, and the Strategic Operations Division with required security clearances and depth of knowledge. He points out that this matter has been reviewed several times, especially over the last four years.
General Cosgrove is at pains to describe in detail the difference between "Warlike" and "Non-warlike" operations and why submarine special operations fit into the "Non-warlike" category.
He states that he is deeply interested in veterans’ entitlements and that proper reward for service is made and he is intensely aware of submariners’ valuable service and the difficult nature of service in submarines. He points out that the Australian Service Medal with clasp "Special Ops" is not insignificant and one for which we can be justifiably proud.
He concludes by regretting that he can be of no further assistance to us in this matter.
It is my view, as National President of our Association, that we should accept this decision with the knowledge that we have done our best to secure a favourable outcome, but the regulations, clear and precise that they are, and very unlikely to be changed, do not permit it.
I believe any further submissions will be futile and possibly counterproductive in other areas, such as health and welfare, where we really do need support.
I am asking the National Committee to endorse my view.
BARRY NOBES
Captain RAN (Rtd)