Privacy Policy  |  Editorial Policy  |  Profit Policy  |  Join the Association  |  List of Members  |  Contact us  |  Index  |  Links  

Merchandise    |     Print this page

Back     Go to page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20     Forward

While the Association does not necessarily agree or disagree with everything on this page,

we do respect the right of everyone to have their say.

Contents

Afghanistan - Allan Essery.

Brereton Report - John Clarkson.

Disabled in our Service - TPI Federation.

Is our sense of humour gone?

Reflections from both sides of the fence - Andrew Hastie.

The reason why?

What the bloody Halal is going on in the Army - Charlie Lynn.

Where are they now?

Where are they now?

Barry Wanstall

Michael Wass would like to get in touch with Barry Wanstall (ex ADGie and WOD) since he retired from helping local AAFC units. If there's a chance you have his contact details - I'd appreciate you letting him know I'd appreciate a brew and a yarn.   If you can help, let us know and we’ll pass on the info to Michael – tb.

Geoffrey Matthews.

Daniel Matthews writes:  I am the middle son of Geoffrey Matthews. OAM. and I noticed that you have a photo of him that I have never seen. Myself, and his only five grandchildren live in Yamanto QLD with my wife Ana (a nurse at Ipswich hospital) and due to the COVID-19 restrictions we were not able to travel to Vic as planned when we heard that he was seriously ill so sadly he did not get to meet the younger ones and none of us got to say farewell. The kids accept that all of humanity is having a rough 2020 but it would be of some comfort if you could supply us with any digital copies of photos that you may have or any other information about his accomplishments as he was not one to brag about his work.   If you can help here, please send us your photos or info and we’ll pass it on – tb.

Keith Beardsmore.

We received the following from Andrew Beardsmore, he says:  I am trying to locate and contact my uncle Keith Beardsmore; using the Internet to search I note that you have a member of that name in Queensland. It's entirely possible this is the incorrect Keith Beardsmore, but the gentleman I am looking to contact would've had a brother Edmund Michael Beardsmore (my Father) who has since passed. Originally from Shrewley, in the Midlands of England (Warwickshire), he left England a very long time ago to pursue a career in education in Australia. I believe he did his national service in England in the RAF, which would explain why he is a member of your organisation abroad. Please forward my details (The two email addresses above) on to your member, as I'm sure he will know whether or not he is the Keith Beardsmore I'm looking to contact. I am keen to learn more about my Father and their family, and also have family memorabilia, photos etc to pass on. Thank you for your time.

Your say!

Afghanistan

Allan Essery

Upon the release of the Brereton report into the activities of our SAS in Afghanistan I was so angry at the tone of such a witch-hunt that had more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. I was disgusted by the string of useless politicians including Scott Morrison, none of whom ever donned the uniform, who appeared for their twenty seconds in the limelight on TV, to share their lack of knowledge of military matters in an effort to turn the general public against those who have not yet been given a chance to defend themselves in a properly convened court of justice.

I will not for one moment condone the actions of those involved if they are found guilty but I will not condemn them especially on the say so of Brereton, Campbell or Scott Morrison who have obviously found them guilty before any trial.

The suggestion that the service medals of all those who served in Afghanistan be taken from them because of the as yet unproven actions of a few is a bloody disgrace. The TV appearance of Angus Campbell to sprout his sanctimonious insult to the intelligence of the average Australian really was laughable in light of what he failed to say.

Campbell spoke about morals and morality. That prompted a question in my mind as to what exactly is righteous and morally superior about killing anyone whether it is in tune with the so-called ‘Rules of Engagement’ or not. War is war and that means lots of killing but that doesn’t make you morally superior to do so on the grounds of a set of rules that have little relevance in such a conflict.

Campbell, and I believe Brereton, failed miserably by not mentioning the fact that Afghanistan wasn’t a war but a fight against guerrilla forces who didn’t give a tuppeny stuff about his Rules 0f Engagement. It was a conflict against a non-uniformed enemy who couldn’t be easily recognised. It was a war where the farmer who was talking to a SAS member a minute before, shoots him in the back when he turns to go.

Campbell apologised to the Afghans for the supposed murder of their people and suggested that the families of those supposedly murdered should be paid compensation but, he failed to ask for an apology and compensation from Afghanistan for those of our SAS who were murdered by Afghans who were supposed to be on their side. We should not forget that three of our soldiers were shot dead while playing cards at their base camp by a rogue member of the Afghan Army. I bet that didn’t get a mention in Brereton’s scribblings.

The condemning of the supposed killing of unarmed civilians by our armed forces is steeped in hypocrisy as people like Campbell, Brereton and high rankers in the ADF conveniently forget or dismiss the action of the Allies during WWII. Let us recall how the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Allied forces killed some 228,000 innocent civilians and injured tens of thousands more. Then of course there were the bombing raids upon Germany and other atrocities that killed thousands of civilians. That appears to be quite justified in the minds of the current bunch of hypocritical witch hunters.

Now, what has Brereton, Campbell, the ADF high command and the PM and government of the time going to do about all those who suffered PTSD and or suicided as a result of their multiple deployments during the Afghan shamozzel that Australia should never have been involved in.

Reflections from both sides of the fence.

Andrew Hastie – MP

Red rocky earth cut into our flesh, numbing our hands. It was well after midnight, perhaps 3am. Floodlights lit up the group. Cadence push-ups on bleeding knuckles in the dead of night is the sort of misery that either consumes you or clarifies your sense of mission. Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith, fresh back from the Battle of Tizak, towered over us, the 25 officer candidates on the 2010 SASR selection course. His displeasure showed in his menacing body language. He switched out our hand position from palms down to knuckles. ‘You f—ing officers. You always take the easy option. Lower. Hold.’ An eternity passed as our fatigued muscles trembled close to the ground. ‘Raise!’ The irony might have been lost on him, but not on me. Humbling myself before Ben Roberts-Smith was not easy. Nor would be serving in the Special Air Service Regiment in the weeks, months and years ahead.

SASR selection is an exacting experience. For an officer, your command, leadership and character is closely scrutinised for 21 days. They break down your body to see who you really are—what you are like when you’re tired, hungry and dejected. Moments like this over the following fortnight thinned the ranks of officers. Men, gifted in command and planning, departed on their own terms— withdrawing quietly. Others were removed by the Directing Staff. The rest of us pressed on, reaching a point of insanity in the final week. No food for days, almost no sleep, impossible physical tasks. What was the point of it all?

The last week posed this question for those candidates remaining: when there is nothing left to give—who can go beyond and finish the mission? For the first time I understood Clausewitz’s dictum that war is a contest of wills. Finish the job, or fail.

We finished Selection on Friday 13 August 2010. When I called my wife to tell her, I wept. I was cold, shivering and spent. I’d lost 12 kilograms in three weeks and I had no emotional reserves. That day SASR Trooper Jason Brown died bravely—under fire—in Afghanistan serving with the Special Operations Task Group. It was a subdued mood back at Swanbourne. There were no high fives. Starved, physically exhausted and emotionally shattered, we sat around a radio cleaning our rifles the next morning. We quietly listened to the voices of our Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott express their condolences at the death of another digger in Australia’s longest war.

That day set a course for me. I served in the SAS for the next five years, deploying to Afghanistan as a Troop Commander in 2013 as part of the Special Operations Task Group. I did not anticipate that ten years later I would be a Member of Parliament, explaining how we found ourselves in a dark place.

Like all of us, I am grieved by the findings of the Brereton Report, handed down by the Chief of the Defence Force. There is much to be troubled by: the report details credible information regarding allegations of unlawful killings by Australian soldiers. Specifically, 23 incidents of alleged unlawful killings of 39 people, perpetrated by 25 Australian Special Forces soldiers, mainly from the Special Air Service Regiment. The report is hard reading. It is comprehensive, detailed and unsparing in its judgement on those alleged to have committed war crimes. As a former officer of the SASR and someone who believes in Regimental honour, I feel great shame in what has occurred. We were sent to Afghanistan in a double trust—to defend Australia’s values and interests by force, but also to uphold those values in our battlefield conduct.

Many good soldiers honoured that trust; a small number of soldiers did not. Many people want to know: how did this happen? Here are some personal observations on the Brereton Inquiry that are shaped by five years of service in SASR and five years as a Member of the Federal Parliament.

First, we have forgotten basic truths about human nature that previous generations of Australians better understood. We live in a bent world. We all carry man’s smudge: people do bad things. Christians call it sin in a fallen world. Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant called it the ‘crooked timber’ of humanity. Whatever name we give our condition, we should always guard against the reality of people doing bad things when they are left unaccountable. The Australian constitution aligned our system of government to this realist view of human nature. The drafters understood the importance of the rule of law, the separation of powers and the need for accountability amongst those who serve in government.

Our soldiers and officers are no different: they need accountability and firm leadership in the degrading cockpit of war. It appears this did not happen from the very top to the bottom of the command chain.

Second, we ignored the true nature of war and sanitised it. We pretended it was no different to any other form of unilateral government policy. But the reality is that war is inherently violent, escalatory and degrading. It is a modern conceit to pretend that war can be managed with a set of safe technocratic hands. The brutal reality is that no plan ever survives the first shot. People lose their way and become hard of heart, especially after multiple deployments. During the Second World War, the Churchill government commissioned Laurence Olivier to make a technicolour film version of Shakespeare’s Henry V to boost wartime morale. Olivier edited out one third of the play, excising Henry’s violent speech demanding surrender of the Governor of Harfleur. King Henry, understanding the nature of ‘impious war’ once unleashed, posed the question: What rein can hold licentious wickedness When down the hill he holds his fierce career?

Shakespeare paints violent imagery of the ‘blind and bloody soldier with foul hand’ committing all sorts of atrocities. He saw that war has its own dark energy. He knew it consumes people in ways that modern society cannot comprehend, largely because we have packaged it up nicely for the evening news. The Australian Defence Force was very effective at sanitising our longest war with its legions of Public Affairs Officers. The United Kingdom and the USA took a liberal approach, allowing reporters to see their soldiers at war, however, we stage-managed Australia’s contribution to Afghanistan through a carefully crafted information operation. This approach stifled public interest reporting. Perhaps with greater access for the Australian media, some of the events alleged by the Brereton Report might never have happened.

Third, parliamentary scrutiny of Defence is broken and needs fixing. Politicians routinely visited Aussie troops in Tarin Kot. I first met Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop in 2009, on my first deployment with the 2nd Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force. I harangued a Labor MP in 2013 about Defence budget cuts when he visited the Special Operations Task Group. Each of them were interested and supportive, but it seemed they didn’t know what questions to ask. I now realise this is partly a function of a deficient Parliamentary Committee system. There is no independent Joint Defence Committee where tough questions can be asked in a classified, protected space. Parliamentary scrutiny these days is surface level. It amounts to senior Defence leadership presenting a few PowerPoint slides and giving parliamentarians a pat on the head.

This is an area of urgent reform. If we are serious about increased accountability and transparency, then we need proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force. Without it, our parliament can’t exercise proper civilian oversight of our military.

Fourth, the Brereton Report (click the pic at right for the report) rightly condemns a warrior culture that fused ‘military excellence with ego, entitlement and exceptionalism’. Sometimes SASR operators carried themselves like modern incarnations of Achilles, Thor or Mars. I reject that culture, too. But I believe a warrior culture is an important part of an elite combat unit. It all depends on the beliefs and values you build that culture on. When I was posted to SASR as a non-qualified Captain in January 2010, I was befriended by the Unit Chaplain, a bloke by the initials of SB. He had an Irish temperament and liked to box, often with the operators. He was refreshingly confrontational, not a social worker in uniform. SB confronted what he called a ‘pagan warrior ethos’, shorn of any connection to the Just War tradition that has shaped our approach to warfare. As Saint Augustine wrote near the end of the Roman Empire, we must: “In waging war, cherish the spirit of a peacemaker, that by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back to the advantages of peace.”

Our boxing chaplain was right. The warrior ethos I sometimes saw was about power, ego and self-adulation. It worshipped war itself. It was the opposite of the humility that I expected to find at SASR. But there was a competing, more positive warrior culture at SASR, it just wasn’t the prevailing one at the time. If you looked closely, you’d find humble, quiet operators. Tough as nails. Fiercely competitive. Supremely competent at arms. The sort of bloke that you’d want next to you in a gunfight. They never thought themselves bigger than the team or the mission. They were humble. They were committed to truth. They were the ones who blew the whistle and repudiated the dark toxic personalities that have shamed the SASR in Afghanistan. Many are still serving quietly in the shadows.

So before people cry for a repudiation of all warrior culture, they should first understand what you need in an elite special operations unit. You need people who run to the sound of the guns. Who are prepared to fight and destroy Australia’s enemies. Who will die doing so, if necessary. Those men exist. They are serving at present. They have done nothing wrong. We need to uphold them and their vital mission. They will not be helped by soulless modern cultural theory, derived from the academic ivory tower. It may well diminish our effectiveness if shoe-horned and institutionalised.

Fifth, in the hierarchy of virtues, moral courage remains paramount to physical courage. The public record doesn’t reflect this as our military honours and awards system preferences the recognition of physical courage. Acts of conscience are hard to write up in vigorous prose and people rarely thank leaders who make unpopular decisions. Yet there were acts of command moral courage during the period investigated by the Brereton Inquiry. History won’t record these good deeds the way it will the battlefield criminality of a few, but there were junior leaders at SASR who made hard decisions to uphold the sacred trust reposed in them by the Australian people. Leaders who took responsibility for their command. They know who they are and we honour them.

Finally, despite the Brereton Report, I still believe the profession of arms is a noble one. In any case, a survey of history shows us that war is part of the human experience. Australia has fought wars in the past; we will fight them in the future. We must be ready. And we cannot afford to lose. As Ernest Hemingway wrote, “I have seen much war in my lifetime and I hate it profoundly, but there are worse things than war, and all of them come with defeat.”

In July, the Prime Minister spoke of the post-pandemic world being poorer, more dangerous and more disorderly. We cannot afford to draw the wrong lessons from the Brereton Report. The mission of the ADF remains unchanged: to win our wars. We must prepare ourselves for the challenges ahead. But we must always hold ourselves to high moral standards. When wrong is done, we must hold ourselves to account. That’s why I have supported the Brereton Inquiry: I love my country and want to protect it from those who would harm us from both without and within.

Brereton Report into the Actions of the SAS in Afghanistan.

John Clarkson

(Sergeant gunny – RAAF – Retired),

 (Veteran of Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam campaigns)

As a retired veteran, I wish to raise a few points which I believe the media as well as our Members of Parliament have missed.  Hopefully, I can raise these as points with a few lines each, even though many veterans have expressed their disgust at the manner in which this inquiry has been treated by Government, Defence and the media.

Whilst I am a veteran with qualifying service with the RAAF, my service does not come anywhere near the professionalism, dedication and the proximity of enemy fire that our Army colleagues experienced.  Whilst I may have re-armed numerous helicopter Gunships with a high priority, it was our pilots who faced the enemy fire.  In fact, I learnt far more about our Army colleagues during my period as a Welfare Officer with the Queensland TPI Association.  Therefore, I have the absolute admiration for our military and SAS colleagues in their most difficult role.  So, let me raise a few points:

Fact #1 – Charges:

Whatever accusations are laid against these servicemen, these alleged offences are to be tried by a Military Court.  An airconditioned city courtroom with polished articulate barristers is no place for these charges to be heard.  In fact, each and every charge sheet should begin with the words: “Corporal xxx, whilst on Active Service, you have been charged with xxx”.  The important words here are “Whilst on Active Service”, as these change the whole concept.  Also, in order for the charges to be heard in their correct manner, both the Counsel for the Prosecution and the Counsel for the Defence should be Officers who have experienced and faced enemy fire.  This is the only way that their charges may be heard considering the effects of the heat of battle.

Fact #2 – Apology:

Although this was not a ‘Declared War’, it was none the less a war against an ideology – the Taliban. As many military men have said, in a battle, you only come second once and it’s all over.  Let us not forget – we were regarded as the ‘Infidels’.  It is well known that the Taliban fighters knew no honourable standards of battle or war, in fact it is well known that they would very quickly slaughter innocent women and children who were seen to be of assistance to the Australians.  Sadly, the report does not mention the numerous times the Taliban have slaughtered women and children, and even Australian servicemen who were supposed to be their mentors.  To even consider drafting a letter of apology to any Afghan Government or member of the Taliban is absolutely repugnant – even disgusting. 

Fact # 3 – The manner in which the Media questions senior Officers.

The relationship between the Commissioned Officers and their NCOs within the Australian Defence Forces is a unique one probably not seen in any other nation’s defence forces.  When an officer within a Regiment or a Squadron issues a task to his team, he does so with an incredible amount of trust.  That trust is one which has been earned over a period of time.  Therefore, when that team, headed by a Senior NCO or perhaps a Warrant Officer, begins to carry out that task, they do so with a genuine respect of their leader.  The method of operation may follow the initial plan, or indeed may need some alteration during the execution of the plan.

Many members of the media fail to understand this level of trust and cooperation.  Therefore, whilst the operation is being conducted, the Officer in charge very likely does not know of every detail of the operation, as his team may alter the initial plan as the need arises.  It is on completion of the task that the NCO will inform his officer of the details of the task and the degree of success, including any minor changes to the plan.  Even in many operational squadrons of the RAAF, I have seen many examples where the urgent preparation of armed aircraft needed a slight change of method due to unforeseen circumstances.  The media and of course, the many Politicians need to understand that level of trust and cooperation between the officer and his team.

Fact # 4 – Lessons not learnt from past mistakes.

Some years ago, while a group of officer cadets were undergoing their officer training programme, one of the cadets committed serious sexual offences against one of the female cadet officers.  Sadly, instead of allowing the College Commandant to handle the case and deal out the necessary discipline, the then Minister for Defence the Hon. Steven Smith MP, (ALP) created a huge song and dance in Parliament and the case went on for weeks.  The case should have been handled by the Commandant and the offender would have been disciplined and discharged from the service within days of the event.  The lesson – then – and now – is to allow the military to handle its own discipline problems.

Summary:

If there have been serious offences committed, it is the task of the Military to hear those charges in the proper venue, i.e., by a Military investigation and if necessary, heard by a military court.  These investigations need to be heard by those who know what it is like to face an enemy and to make serious decisions in the heat of battle.

Since this Brereton Report has surfaced, both Federal Government and the Chiefs of Defence have completely lost the respect of the veteran community, which includes veterans from all ages.  However, all is not lost, we have time to repair this damage, which is to hand the entire investigation to the military, then when and if necessary, have any offenders face their charges in a military court.  

What the Bloody Halal is going on in the Army?

Charlie Lynn

The role of the Australian infantry is ‘to close with and kill the enemy.’

There are no ambiguities in that mission statement. In order to train for their assigned role infantrymen practice with guns and live bullets to shoot at targets shaped as humans. They lob grenades to practice blowing people apart. They use fixed bayonets on sandbags to hone their killing skills. They practice ambush drills so they can kill as many enemy as possible in one massive shoot-out. They are trained to be tougher, stronger and more courageous than their foe. And they know they must be prepared to die for each other.

At the end of their training day they come home to help their wives with the housework and their kids with their homework. Next day they resume their training in how to kill people.

They are aware that any enemy they are likely to face has a similar purpose. Some even practice blowing themselves up!

Seven years ago an army team was committed to clearing up a compound which housed a suspected insurgent in Afghanistan. It had to be completed in the dark. As they entered the close confines of the compound all hell broke loose. The troops took cover and called on the insurgent to stop firing and surrender. He answered with another hail of bullets. One of the troops got close enough to hurl a grenade through an opening before his mates stormed the room just as they were trained to do. When the smoke and dust had settled six people, including the insurgent and four children were dead.

Canberra was mortified when they learned that the commandos they sent to Afghanistan to kill people actually killed people. An officer who was trained to write reports and had mountains of files worth of experience was appointed to investigate. He recommended they be charged with manslaughter. A female lawyer, Lyn McDade, dressed up as a Brigadier took up the issue and charged the men (see HERE).

The army judge who heard the case was a young lawyer who I worked with at the 1st Brigade in the early 1980s. He had worked with troops for decades and had a close working knowledge of what they were trained to do, their values and the pride they had in their uniform. He threw the case out. The Brigadier made a few cat-calls but to no avail. The commandos returned to their duties.

Canberra based defencecrats in Fort Fumble were incensed. They enlisted their own coffee-shop commandos and had a conversation - in their space - to deliberate on matters of such import as gender inequality and ethnic diversity in Commando Regiments. The role of the Infantry was discussed. Was it too brutal? Should it be ‘to close with and counsel the enemy’? What if somebody took offence to being labelled as enemy? Should it be ‘to close with and have a conversation with those opposite’?

Training regimes at the Australian Defence Force Academy were adjusted. Instructors were forbidden to raise their voices at young cadets to protect their self-esteem. Crusty old drill sergeants were dispatched to re-education camps. Red marker pens were banned as it was deemed to be too aggressive a colour for marking papers. Male and female quarters were to include an ‘undecided’ section in each barrack block.

The next challenge was to look at the dietary requirements of the troops, troopettes and undecided in the field which is defined as any space beyond the border of the ACT. It was here that all halal broke loose.

Combat rations were examined calorie by calorie. My Kitchen Rules staff were enlisted to join the conversation. Ministers, priests, rabbi’s, Imans, agnostics and organisers of the Gay Mardi Gras congregated to bless and blaspheme menus. Bully-beef and dog-biscuits were subject to stringent OH&S checks and promptly banned. It was found that if a supply of bully-beef was ever captured and consumed by the enemy it could cause severe gastronomical upsets and trigger a class action. If our troops and troopettes ran out of bullets and had to throw dog-biscuits as a last resort they could cause significant injuries to their non-friends shooting back at them.

The psychological state of troops and troopettes at the time of consumption had to be considered. How did the past owner of that 20g piece of meat in that packet die? Was it shot? Was its throat cut? Was it a lethal injection or just old age. Was it given last rites? And by whom?

Surveys of troops, troopettes and the undecided to determine their ethnic origins were necessary to determine the proportion of rations required to meet their needs on operations outside the ACT. How many days each year should they spend amongst those on the other side who lived in suburbs like Boganville before returning to the safety of their PC bubble? So much to ponder!

In light of these considerations the recent decision of the Chief of Army to declare that 30 percent of combat ration packs must carry halal certification to cater for the 0.35 per cent of Muslims in his army makes a lot of sense. PC scribes are already drafting up his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

‘Combat ration balance’ could well be their next international cause celebre!

“Disabled in our Service, United in our Cause”

TPI Federation.

The Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated (TPI) Ex-Servicemen and Women of Australia totally rejects the Prime Minister’s ‘Independent Review into the TPI Payment Report by Mr David Tune AO PSM’ (Tune Review) as nothing more than another ‘Yes Minister’ review.

“The Federation calls upon the Prime Minister, the Government, the Opposition and Parliament as a whole, to categorically, unequivocally and forcefully reject and repudiate these reviews in favour of the TPI Federation’s rightful claim, by immediately facilitating a corrective action to that ‘compelling case’ that the Prime Minister himself said existed, and that so many other policy makers have identified in various forums “as the most deserving issue in the Veteran community.”

National TPI Federation, President, Ms Pat McCabe OAM, said: “Like the flawed Productivity Commission and DVA/KPMG exercises before it, the Prime Minister’s Tune Review has turned out to be nothing more than yet another distorted reverberation emanating out of that echo chamber known as DVA. Sir Humphrey would be very proud!”

“Contrary to Mr Tune’s assertion, the Federation’s 7-year campaign has only ever sought to affect a structural increase to the overall total payment in TPI compensation, as a means of restoring the ‘Living Wage’ legislative provision for which the Parliament had originally intended, but that DVA has allowed to erode.”

“The Federation takes great exception to the continuous and scurrilous suggestions by bureaucratic forces that such restoration would require a fundamental change to the very fabric of a mature compensation entitlement that has existed for a hundred years.” “When the Federation met only once with Mr Tune, he went to great lengths to assert that he was ‘independent’, presumably in an attempt to allay fears and disquiet about his appointment, but it became quickly evident to Federation Executives that Mr Tune had already been captured and was heavily influenced by the flawed thinking and misrepresentations of DVA and its KPMG/Productivity Commission enablers.”

“Suffice to say, neither the Tune Review nor the Government offered any further follow-up correspondence, no follow up consultation and no follow-up right of reply to any draft or policy consideration. “Outrageously, the Tune Review report misrepresents the Federation by stating that it was unable to construct an index from reliable sources. You can’t get much better data for an index than that from the Reserve Bank of Australia”.

“Even when explained in great detail, the Tune Review ignored the fact that the TPI Federation has only ever sought to obtain a structural increase to the whole payment, using only the notional economic loss component (as described by others) as a defensible means to determine a quantifiable deficiency (as measured against Australia’s National Minimum Wage) in doing so.”

“By any measure, 62% of the gross minimum wage for a TPI’s ‘notional economic loss’ remains a serious blight on a succession of LNP Governments, who for over the last 7 years, have allowed themselves to be “hoodwinked” by a cabal of bureaucrats that continue to perpetuate falsities and financial harm against 28,000 of Australia’s most disabled TPI Veterans.”

Ms McCabe said that “the Veteran community and their extended families, are incensed that 28,000 of their most disabled mates are being treated in such a disgraceful way. The Prime Minister is sadly mistaken if he thinks that this is the last hurrah, because like Teddy Sheehan VC, every constituent member of this Federation will continue to ‘fire their collective guns’ for the benefit of 28,000 of Australia’s most disabled Veterans until we sink below the water line.”

It looks like the poor old Poms are copping it too,

seems a sense of humour is now banned everywhere.

See HERE.

The reason why?

Perhaps THIS is what's wrong. I think this Pommy bloke is spot on, let's rebel against all this crap, what do you think??

(If swearing offends you - don't watch it)

Back     Go to page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20     Forward

Back to Top