All News

The Common Debt of Australia has deep roots in the economic transformations witnessed over the past 40 years. In this relatively short span, Australia has undergone a drastic shift from a thriving, self-sufficient nation to one grappling with significant economic challenges.

Not too long ago, prosperity was abundant, with jobs readily available throughout the country. Families thrived on a single income, and iconic industries such as iron ore, steel, shipbuilding, and car manufacturing, including renowned brands like Holden, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Toyota, and Ford, fuelled the nation’s economic engine. Australia proudly manufactured a diverse range of products, from household appliances to vehicles, fostering a sense of national pride with the label “PROUDLY MADE IN AUSTRALIA.”

Rural towns were vibrant hubs connected by an extensive rail network, and local businesses, including corner stores, milk bars, and hardware shops, thrived. Flea markets dotted the weekends, offering fresh and local produce. Public utilities like power stations, water, and gas employed thousands, ensuring affordability, and sustaining various industries nationwide.

However, the narrative took a turn as the government shifted its approach, corporatizing itself and engaging in direct competition with private enterprises. Local councils expanded their reach, acquiring tourist parks and dictating terms to others, leading to a decline in community strength.

The downward spiral accelerated with the outsourcing of industries and businesses, facilitated by free trade agreements that allowed foreign competitors to flood the Australian market with cheap, sub-standard products. The once tight-knit community, marked by mutual respect and a friendly “G’day,” began to erode, replaced by security screens, burglar alarms, and a pervasive sense of fear and stress.

Foreign countries entered the scene, acquiring Australian resources, displacing farmers, and taking over power stations. Educational funding was cut, trade skills teaching slowed, and 457 visas were introduced, replacing skilled workers with cheaper foreign labour. The sale of public assets, such as forests, to foreign owners further weakened the nation.

To compensate for lost income, the government introduced new taxes, levies, and funding cuts to essential services like emergency services, police, and public housing. The public was burdened with additional costs, including the controversial Goods and Services Tax (GST). Meanwhile, politicians enjoyed hefty pay raises, seemingly disconnected from the struggles faced by ordinary Australians.

Now facing a massive debt, the government urges citizens to tighten their belts, forcing the elderly back into the workforce until the age of 70. The once-mighty manufacturing plants now stand as empty monuments to a bygone era, and the ubiquitous “MADE IN CHINA” label serves as a painful reminder that the nation is funding its own demise.

As the government grapples with financial challenges, the question lingers: How did this once self-sufficient nation fall so far, and what will it take to reclaim its former glory?

Respected policy advocate for veterans and their families, Bill Westhead, offers the follow analysis and insights response to Mark Schröffel’s article on the RSL’s National Forum for Ex-Service Organisations.

By Bill Westhead – AVN

ESO’s are a necessary part of veteran support system because of the vacuum left by Government, in particular the ADF’s inability to deliver on its duty-of-care in support our personnel and DVA’s failure in its mission to support the health and wellbeing of our veterans.

For the record, it was RSL Victoria (RSL Vic) that initiated the ESO discussions back in March 2022 but their efforts were initially thwarted by the national leadership of RSL Australia (National). Presumably for beating them to a good idea or overstepping some bureaucratic boundary.

I was closely involved with the two forums sponsored by RSL Vic in March and August 2022. Representatives from National, although invited, were conspicuously absent.

The experience from the RSL Vic events, as recorded in the post activity reports, showed the utility of the meetings but highlighted the inability to achieve a consensus on various matters addressed at the meetings. It seems that National finally decided to shoulder its way into a leadership position, probably after detecting the detecting the vibe coming from the Royal Commission and the veteran community at large.

In reference to your comments in relation to criticism of RSL and the ESO Peak Body, the fact is that some ESO’s and RSL branches actively opposed the Royal Commission (RC) and there is still corporate reticence and lethargy in relation to frank submissions and cooperation with the RC. Continued opposition and lack of cooperation to the RC, as bluntly stated by Commissioner Kaldos. This position seems to be injected into the DNA of some stakeholders.

My view is that the RSL, the ADF and DVA aren’t reading the room concerning the outcomes of RC and what it has revealed. This, coupled with concerns about the public services hard earned reputation for inaction and its ability to strive towards the status quo puts the whole process of the RC into jeopardy.

Evidence given at every hearing to date fortified the suspicions and tribulations of Veterans; the appalling behaviour, bordering on the malfeasant, of the culture and administration from DVA and the ADF has reinforced the necessity for the RC. The recent statements from Commissioner Kaldos after the Melbourne hearings and his appearance at the National Press Club have encouraged Veterans that he and the other Commissioners have grasped the core of the issues.

Veterans should be thankful that Commissioners Kaldos, Douglas and Brown have shown great courage supporting Veterans and Defence personnel in the face of significant obfuscation and obstruction from stakeholders.

Across its continuum the RC has revealed a lack of accountability, the hiding behind opaque walls of public service remits and non-compliance with metrics across the serving and Veteran community. In Victoria, the government bodies that supposedly hold ESOs to account, ACNC and CAV, are failing to scrutinise ESOs and respond professionally to member’s grievances.

Clearly, Veterans and defence personnel, need an independent voice to hold stakeholders to account. The proposed appointment of a permanent National Commission(er) (NC) will go to some way to hold stakeholders to account and measure their performance. The Warragul RSL proposes a structure, shown below, for the ESO Registration and Compliance:

The NC will have other functions and responsibilities but ESOs need to subjected to scrutiny by the NC to be considered legitimate ESOs. Under this concept an organisation would be require to meet minimum standards and be able to demonstrate the following:

• Have and publish a Constitution and/or Rules registered at ACNC and the NC;
• That the ESO leadership is democratically elected by its membership through a process approved by the ACNC and NC;
• The ESO is to have a formal planning process with measurable targets submitted to the NC annually;
• The ESO is to have annual elections, those elections audited by an independent body and the results declared publicly;
• The ESO is to publish its payroll in detail to the membership and the NC annually;
• The ESO is to comply with ACNC laws, legislative intent, and direction and the ACNC and State Consumer Affairs departments are to report compliance;
• Any income derived from the use of an ESO trademark or name, or business income is to be directed to Veteran welfare in the first instance by that ESO;
• The ESO is to publish its financial results in detail, including the status of the ESO’s “Estate” to the NC and its members annually;
• The ESO is to detail its financial and operational details to the NC twice per calendar year;
• The NC is to monitor and report on financial performance and financial viability of the ESO annually; and
• The NC is to make comment and recommendations on the financial veracity of the ESO.

There is a moral dimension for ESOs, especially the RSL network. Some RSL branches and sub-branches are leveraging community compassion and support to fund their operations via ANZAC and Remembrance Day appeals whilst conducting businesses turning over hundreds of millions of dollars. In Victoria members (and the public) have little visibility on how these business funds are dispersed for the object of the RSL – Veteran welfare.

Despite many attempts by members to reconcile this issue, to no avail, government intervention is necessary to force these ESO entities to comply with appropriate legislation to become operationally and financially transparent. The NC concept is designed to ensure compliance and transparency.

The criteria proposed supported by metrics and accountability are required because self-regulation has failed. The evidence produced at the RC demonstrates that the complexities of the management of defence personnel and veteran health are beyond the ability of stakeholders to self-regulate and report “from the opaque”!

Evidence, history, and historic suicide confirm that stakeholder change will only occur if Government intervenes.

We hope that the Government has the courage to implement (and fund) all the RC recommendations. We hope that the RSL will support the recommendations and advocate strongly on their behalf.

Recent RC’s into Banks, Aged Care, Robodebt and Defence Personnel and Veteran suicide have pilloried our elected representatives and the public and uniformed services. An office of the National Commissioner will need to be armed with comprehensive government support to hold stakeholders to account.

Serving Personnel and Veterans deserve timely, professional, and sophisticated health support. Intense government commitment to these obligations supported by strong ESO advocacy will facilitate the restoration of community faith in the ADF to enable them to be considered as preferred employers for the security of our country.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Westhead

In a recent development, Rheinmetall, the German automotive and arms manufacturer, has secured a multi-million euro deal with the Ukrainian government. The agreement entails the supply of 25 Leopard 1A5 main battle tanks, along with additional support vehicles. This contract, valued in the upper two-digit millions of euros, was awarded by the Ukrainian government to Rheinmetall, encompassing not only the main battle tanks but also five Bergepanzer 2 armoured recovery vehicles and two driver training tanks.

Financed by Germany, the comprehensive deal announced on November 14 includes various elements such as training, logistics, spare parts, maintenance, and other support services. The Leopard 1 systems are currently undergoing refurbishment and preparation for use at Rheinmetall’s facilities in Unterlüß and Kassel. The delivery of the tanks and support vehicles is scheduled for the year 2024.

In a public statement, Rheinmetall expressed its commitment to consistently support Ukraine by providing a continuous supply of tactical vehicles. The company highlighted its previous involvement in delivering 80 Marder infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine, most of which are already operational and have demonstrated their effectiveness in ongoing operations. Additionally, Rheinmetall stands ready to deliver another 20 Marder IFVs upon receiving an order to that effect.

Looking ahead, Ukraine is set to receive five Caracal airmobile-capable vehicles in late 2023 and early 2024. Rheinmetall will also fulfill orders from the Dutch and Danish governments, supplying Ukraine with 14 Leopard 2A4 tanks next year. Beyond vehicles, Rheinmetall is actively supporting the Ukrainian armed forces with ammunition, drones, and medical facilities.

Earlier in the year, the Australian federal government announced a $20 million military assistance package for Ukraine, which includes counter-drone systems, de-mining equipment, portable X-ray machines, and a 3D metal printer produced by Australian defence industry companies. As part of this support, a Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail aircraft has been deployed to Germany to assist in multinational efforts and provide humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine. The Australian-developed equipment, supplied by companies such as DroneShield, Micro-X, Minelab, and SPEE3D, contributes to Australia’s overall assistance to Ukraine, reaching approximately $910 million. It is important to note that the E-7A Wedgetail aircraft will not participate in the conflict in Ukraine, and Australian Defence Force personnel and assets will not enter Ukrainian, Russian, or Belarusian airspace during the deployment.

The discussion surrounding China’s rapid ascent and its global ambitions prompts a critical question: are concerns about Beijing’s intentions and capabilities justified or misguided? History is akin to a flowing river, and external influences can alter its course, much like contaminants affecting downstream water quality.

The foundations of our contemporary world, marked by increasing global competition, trace back not merely a few years or decades but to intense rivalries of the 20th century and earlier. The clash between revolutionary Marxist communism, epitomized by Stalin’s Soviet Union and subsequently Mao’s People’s Republic of China, and the capitalist West defined much of this period. This ideological confrontation, rooted in perceived exploitation by the ruling elite and colonial expansion, fueled post-war decolonization.

The ensuing Cold War era, with the United States leading the capitalist, Western, liberal democratic world, kept global tensions sub-nuclear but active. Despite occasional proxy conflicts, intelligence agencies engaged in “grey” zone operations, expanding the geopolitical competition. The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1990 seemingly marked the triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism, leading to the “End of History.”

Fast forward to the present, and the optimism following the Soviet Union’s demise has given way to a more uncertain future. The current “Cold War” is defined not just by ideological rivalry but by economic, strategic, and demographic competitions. China, under Mao’s leadership, emerges as a juggernaut studying historical lessons and aiming to reshape the global status quo.

The post-World War II economic and strategic order is under siege, with waning confidence in the United States’ capacity as the world’s hegemon. Economic decline in the West, contrasted with China’s dynamism, contributes to global uncertainty. The potential for territorial expansion, especially regarding Taiwan, adds a concerning dimension to the geopolitical landscape.

However, amidst the apprehension, there are nuances to China’s power. The Economist’s analysis emphasizes the need for a balanced perspective. While China appears assertive and hostile, its military shortcomings and economic challenges, including a property crunch and hostility towards the private sector, temper its strength.

Despite concerns, the West, particularly the US-led world order, lacks a comprehensive understanding and intelligence capacity regarding China. This gap offers an opportunity for the US and its allies to strategize. Xi’s consolidation of power faces challenges, both militarily and economically.

China’s military prowess, despite being formidable, has weaknesses. Economic challenges, including a property crisis and a shift in the Communist Party’s stance towards the private sector, hinder growth. The West, including Australia and the United States, must approach China realistically, identifying weaknesses and leveraging them to ensure responsible international conduct.

In shaping the future of the Indo-Pacific, the actions of China, the United States, and allies will play a pivotal role. While cooperation is mutually beneficial, it should not compromise fundamental values. Viewing China realistically and focusing on its vulnerabilities will be crucial in navigating the complexities of this evolving global order. Both the United States and its allies, including Australia, must strike a balance in military capabilities to address regional challenges effectively.

With compliments

In reference to the recently distributed ‘Repatriation Benefits for Gold Card Veterans’, yesterday during a GP consultation, I introduced my eligibility.

After discussion and research, I requested prescriptions [with repeats] for 3 different items.

Prescriptions written and dispensed. [with considerable savings]

Please do not hesitate in bringing this matter to your GP’s attention.

‘Use it or lose it’!

Ralph Wollmer

The Norfolk Island RSL charter began many decades ago.  In 1921 the Norfolk Island men returning from WWI formed a Returned Service League for the veterans’ who served.  For WWI and WWII Norfolk Island contributed more service personnel per capita than any other Commonwealth nation of the world.  A proud history.

Norfolk Island has the first service in Australia owing to the time differences.  We have a very poignant Kapyong Day service remembering the Korea War and then ANZAC services begins with a Dawn service on Emily Beach which is very memorable.

This is our first time using a Travel Centre in Norfolk Island to market and sell our (RSL) packages; this being  ANZAC week 2024.  This launch is late in the travel industry nuances so there are only 37 packages available on a first come basis?

Would you consider distributing this NI RSL Sub Branch ANZAC 2024 package to your Diaspora and colleagues and social motorbike club for ex-service members please?  The package is shown at the attachment.

Thankyou for leaving your card with Eddy and I hope to see you and your friends next year or perhaps in subsequent years.

Kind regards,

Tet

Kind regards,

Terence (Tet) Grube JP

Hon Sec

Norfolk Island RSL Sub Branch

Ph: +6723 54848

Email: [email protected]

CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO VIEW TRAVEL PACKAGES

Anzac Day 2024 – BPT Package (1)

Anzac Day 2024 – NITC Package

The first nuclear-powered submarine to be constructed under the AUKUS alliance is anticipated to be sold to Australia in the year 2038, as disclosed by a high-ranking US naval officer. Additionally, the officer, Vice Admiral Bill Houston, shared that the initial transactions involving used Virginia-class submarines are likely to take place in 2032 and 2035.

Visiting Sydney for a separate media event, the commander of the US Pacific fleet assured Australians that their country would maintain complete sovereignty over the American technology when the submarines are eventually deployed. Vice Admiral Houston outlined a provisional timeline for the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia within the AUKUS framework during a briefing in Washington.

As reported by Breaking Defence, Vice Admiral Houston indicated that the planned sales of “in-service submarines” to Australia are scheduled for 2032 and 2035. Subsequently, in 2038, Australia is expected to acquire a newly constructed Block VII version of the Virginia-class submarine. Notably, this Block VII submarine will lack the Virginia Payload Module, a mid-body section found on certain fleet boats that enhances missile capacity.

In adherence to the AUKUS agreement, the United States is committed to selling a minimum of three, and potentially up to five, Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the 2030s. Following this phase, the United Kingdom will collaborate with Australia to jointly construct a new SSN-AUKUS submarine fleet.

While Defence Minister Richard Marles has yet to comment on the specifics of the proposed pathway for nuclear-powered submarines, he expressed optimism earlier in the week, highlighting broad political support for the project in the US. He noted ongoing legislative efforts in the US Congress aimed at facilitating the sale of Virginias and enabling Australia’s contribution to the American industrial uplift.

To enable the transfers to Australia, US officials emphasize the need to increase the annual production rate of Virginia-class submarines from the current 1.2 vessels to well above 2 per year. Marles underscored this requirement at the International Maritime Exposition in Sydney, stating the importance of enhancing production capacity.

In a revealing disclosure, Vice Admiral Houston conveyed that Australian assets had been targeted by the Chinese military in numerous dangerous intercepts conducted in the South China Sea over the past two years. He expressed deep concern about the increasing provocations and hazards posed by these actions.

Despite concerns raised by critics of the AUKUS partnership, suggesting potential entanglement in a future US-China conflict over Taiwan, Admiral Paparo dismissed these worries. Emphasizing the importance of sovereignty as an expression of human dignity at the state level, he underscored mutual respect as the foundational principle of the alliance. Admiral Paparo also expressed his confidence in the Australian government’s recent decision not to terminate a Chinese-owned company’s lease of Darwin Port.