Clarity to Chaos and Back Again - Navigating the Complexities of Retrospective Recognition of Service
Ian Lindgren
Executive Chairman - PayMe Group | Chairperson Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans’ Association
This discussion seeks input from legal experts within the veteran community and those who advocate for veterans. At the outset, I wish to acknowledge the comprehensive groundwork laid by the Retrospective Recognition of Service Working Group, led by Paul Copeland, and the efforts of Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association Executive Director Nathan Bradney. Their contributions are invaluable, particularly since I have not personally encountered warlike or hazardous conditions. Likewise, when I was peacekeeping, I did not experienced the swift transition from peacefull to warlike situations within minutes.
The goal here is to distill the complexities of this topic for discussions at Parliament House and within Defence.
Situation
When the Australian Defence Force (ADF) plans an operation, multiple entities collaborate to define the conditions of service, which are ultimately approved by the Minister for Defence. The primary focus is on the operational needs of the ADF, determining the circumstances under which service members will deploy; this also determines the associated benefits or entitlements the service members may receive either shortly after an operation, perhaps due to injury, or decades later when they transition. This places much hardship on veterans and their families and presents a trigger for suicidal ideation.
Service Condition Ddeterminations
There are three formal service condition determinations, and one additional characterisation to be noted:
Peacetime: Operations are conducted with no expectation of hostile casualties, with risks mainly stemming from environmental factors.
Non-Warlike: Operations involve an indirect risk of harm. Limited force is authorised for self-defense, and no casualties are anticipated.
Warlike: These operations carry a direct risk of harm. Force is authorised to achieve military objectives, and casualties are expected.
Hazardous: A characterisation occasionally referenced by the Australian Government, this term is defined through various policies and legislative instruments, particularly those related to veterans' entitlements. It refers to duties exposing ADF personnel to risks exceeding those of normal peacetime operations.
So, put simply, an operation is classified as one of the three or four above. The classification of service does not often change even though there could be long periods of warlike service and long periods of non-warlike service which could even be equivalent of the rotation of a small unit in and out of a warlike area.
Rightly those who experience warlike service obtain health care post transition such as but not limited to:
Veterans’ Entitlements Act (VEA) & Military Rehabilitation Compensation Act (MRCA):
1. War Service Pension (Income Support Pensions - Partnered);
2. Gold Card eligibility at age 70.
3. Beneficial approach for automatic acceptance of claims of Mental Illnesses, if served less than 28 days in the Area of Operations.
4. Beneficial approach for basis of evidence as the Reasonable Hypothesis, with the Statement of Principles (SOP).
领英推荐
But What of the Peacekeeper or the Veteran Unexpectedly Placed in Harm's Way
Let's first look at Lebanon in August 2024. Op Paladin is a non-warlike operation and below on the left we see Hezbollah firing rockets at a combatant, and then on the right we see counter battery fire from a combatant in the form of White Phosphorus on the UNSTO Compound
There has been an average of 1000 kinetic and WP rounds a month falling on the UNSTO positions since October 2023 keeping the Op Paladin observers underground for up to a month at a time. One casualty has been evacuated back to Australia after an unarmed foot patrol.
Lebanon 1982
In 1982 a Civil War erupted, descending into lawlessness from early January to late February 1984. During this turbulent period, Australian Peacekeepers found themselves trapped in the crossfire, facing unintended and severe risks to their lives. A devastating bombing of the Barracks occurred, claiming the lives of over 300 US Marines, soldiers, and French Paratroopers. The conditions of service remained non-warlike.
Despite the challenging conditions faced by ADF personnel in Lebanon during 1982/4, the Australian Government has yet to recognise their service as warlike. Today with over 1,000 rounds impacting monthly and personnel staying underground for extended periods, the official policy is that there is no risk of direct harm or expectation of casualties.
ADF personnel who became ill or injured during 1982/4 in Lebanon, and those who have served there since, amid Intifadas and other hostile actions, including the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas and the escalating tensions with Hezbollah, are denied the benefits usually given to those in officially recognised warlike environments, despite operating in conditions that give the appearance of warlike service conditons.
Retrospective Reclassification of Service Pathway
The existing policy requires veterans to seek retrospective reclassification of their service to access treatment for injuries sustained in warlike conditions. This process is chaotic, because they must approach the ADF element that considers issues based on operational needs, and does so with personnel who may not fully understand the long-term struggles veterans face post-transition.
The Need for A Radical Shift in Logic
An operational need is not a medical need and there is a pressing need for policy reform to ensure that veterans who served in direct risk of harm, were force may have been authorised to achieve military objectives, and casualties could be expected, to receive fair recognition and support.
The current policy forces veterans to navigate a confusing process to have their service reclassified retrospectively in order to access treatment for injuries sustained in warlike conditions. This system requires them to engage with ADF entities focused on operational needs, often staffed by personnel who may not fully grasp the long-term challenges veterans endure after transitioning from service. There is a crucial distinction between operational and medical needs, underscoring an urgent need for policy reform. Such changes should ensure that veterans who faced direct risks, where force might have been necessary to achieve military objectives and casualties were a real possibility, receive the recognition and support they deserve.
Richard Marles Matt Keogh Paul Copeland Phillip Thompson OAM MP Luke Gosling OAM MP Nathan Bradney Philip Pyke OAM Harry Noe Kahlil Scarf Fegan DSC, AM Peter Lambert Andrew C. Wood Karl Sullivan John Caligari AO, DSC Cheryl Pearce AM CSC Liz Daly Chris Moss Guy Richardson Andrew Jenkins Jess S. Pauline Ryan Mischa Damon Cameron Niven Hayley Ann Boswell ?? Greg Whitehouse Jeremy S.
People Project Manager
3 个月You should see the retrospective process to treat a former member as medically unfit!
Post Doctoral Fellow Flinders University
3 个月Interesting analysis Ian - the complexity is reative and situational for a reason - always purpose driven by treasury and finance - reduction of fiscal/numerative liability - I read an article recently emanating out of the UK - when we had “ Lifters & Leaners” driving social policy outcomes, the UK had “Strivers & Skivers” - somehow Veterans’ services got dropped into this viper pit of malfeasance - I’m rational enough to say that abuses have and do occur -the long tail of malingerer can be traced back to those returning from the British War in Southern Africa that our “Empire troops” contributed to - but from where I sit today - the underlying factor that must be the top priority is “need” - if there is a need - a response is required - that is what sits behind the social contract between the member (and their family) and the state they choose to serve - Warlike, Non-Warlike, Operational, Non-Operatiional - there is a current trust deficit - when service and support is sought and is done right, we are second to none in what is on offer, but when we get it wrong, our mortuaries have seen the outcomes…
Trying to solve people, process and technology
3 个月TLDR: if you fall off a ladder in Afghanistan you are treated differently than if you fell off a ladder in Australia. It’s an interesting discussion on how we got here. On one hand weighting injuries on operational, war like environments seemed like it made sense, on the other it was just a blanket tool to put all the issues in one category. I would frame it that I think it would have been designed off a different era where operational deployments were much more “in the mud” and less officelike environments. Many civilians are surprised to learn that many in Afghanistan spent their entire deployment in an air conditioned office with a low level of threat and access to normal amenities like gyms, movie theatre rooms etc. This is in contrast to a disaster recovery operation in Australia where diggers are living in the mud for weeks often enduring a lot different threats. It’s an area that needs a lot more debate and understanding as things like remote cyber and drone operators can and are impacting real world combat operations daily but receive none of the recognition. Perhaps it’s time to move beyond 2 dimensional lines on maps
Self Employed (Freelance) Keynote Yarner
3 个月A great line going from peace to war in minutes - sometimes seconds the impact that must have on anyone no matter the training!!
Member Tasmanian Government's Veterans' Reference Group (VRG)
3 个月A wrong is a wrong no matter how far in the past, ever so great full Ian & others it's time this travesty was properly investigated for the sake of many who have suffered over the years without recourse to proper recognition & compensation.