Jul and Oct 1990 - Navy League of Australia

On 5 April 1990, a
surprising signal from the
Chief of the Australian
Naval Staff to numerous
authorities stated"... and
accordingly I have directed
that, subject to the
provision of suitable
accommodation, women
shall be permitted to serve
in peacetime in all ships
except submarines".
Clearly someone had given
the Chief of Naval Staff
permission to make this
statement. Who was it?
T
HE new Federal Cabinet was sworn
in on 4 April 1990. It seems
unlikely thai either the new Minister
for Defence (Mr Ray) or new Minister
for Defence, Science and Personnel (Mr
Bilney) would have the time to study
and make a decision on such a complex
and controversial matter in the few
hours before the Chief of Naval Staff's
signal was released. There can be little
doubt the decision had been taken by the
previous Ministers (Mr Beazley and Mrs
Kelly) prior to the Federal election on
24 March although no mention was
made of it during the election
campaign.Nearly two months later, on
30 May. Mr Bilney announced in a press
statement "Women will serve in combatrelated
positions"; he went on to say,
inter alia:
• "I have taken this decision on the
advice of the Chiefs of Staff
Committee", it will be noted that the
Minister used the word "advice"
rather than "recommendation" and
this is hardly surprising when the
Chief of the Defence Force, General
Peter Gration. was subsequently
quoted in several newspapers as
saying "I don't think the country is
ready to put women into combat. I
don't know if it ever will".
• "The Services will no longer use the
exemption under the Sex Dis-
12 - The Navy. October-December, 1990
Women
At
Sea
by Vice Admiral
Sir Richard Peek
crimination Act which allows women
to be excluded from combat-related
duties. At this stage the exemption
for combat-related duties will remain
alongside the exemption for combat
duties". Can an individual Chief of
Staff, a junior Minister or indeed
Cabinet disregard or alter a
regulation made under an Act of
Parliament without first explaining or
tabling the proposed amendment in
the Senate and the House of
Representatives?
"Having regard to the particular
nature of their operations each of the
Services have examined their
activities to determine how women
will move into combat-related roles.
This has been done with the clear
understanding that they will not be
withdrawn should a conflict arise.
The Royal Australian Navy has
decided that women can serve in all
Navy ships with the exception of
submarines ...". In other words it
would appear that both "combat" and
"combat-related" exemptions are to
be discarded.
Do Australian parents really want
their daughters and grand-daughters to
be engaged in combat? Although war of
1939-45 dimensions may seem a remote
possibility, it should be remembered that
in the last 45 years of "peace" our armed
forces have been in action or at risk on
numerous occasions while fulfilling
United Nations or Treaty obligations;
the Korean War, Malaysia, Vietnam,
Kashmir, Namibia and the Sinai come to
mind, near-involvement in the Persian
Gulf and during the first Fijian coup,
and more recently our ships were
deployed to the Persian Gulf. The
pattern of events is unlikely to change.
It has been suggested that, as women
are reported to fight alongside men in
places such as Nicaragua, Sri Lanka and
the Phillipines, Australian women
should be able to So likewise. Even if
the reports are correct do we want to
follow these few countries and not the
overwhelming majority of countries
which do not allow their women in to
combat? Should we be leading the way
in this matter as it has been claimed we
arc doing?
It is widely believed in the defence
community that the real and compelling
reason for the ministerial decision is the
inability of the Defence Force to recruit
and retain sufficient male personnel to
man RAN ships, including combat
ships, and to man the combat-related
units of the Army and Air Force. So far
as the Navy is concerned the current
male naval establishment is about
14,000. If we cannot attract and retain
this very small percentage of a male
population in excess of seven millions,
there is something desperately wrong
with our young men, the
Defence/Treasury administration of pay,
allowances and conditions of service, or
our political leadership. To my
knowledge, there is nothing the matter
with our young men.
Perhaps Ministers should devote
more of their abilities and energy to
attacking the real problems and forget
about the "quality career opportunities"
for talented women.
NAVAL MATTERS
by A. W. GRAZEBROOK
REGIONAL STABILITY
AND DEFENCE
(Burma) must also be worrying.
Detente in Europe, the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Eastern Indonesia's expansion programme with second hand ships, to be
Europe, the end of Communist domination of some Eastern European replaced eventually by frigates built under a programme nearly three
nations and claimed reductions in Soviet armaments are leading some times the size of our own Anzac frigates, is clearly justified in the light of
European and North American democracies to reduce their defence her geostrategic position and dependence on internal sea
budgets.
communications.
Some Australian disarmament advocates have suggested that Malaysia's new corvettes and modem submarines with the latest
Australia should also reduce her defence expenditure.
capabilities will further enlarge her fleet. A glance at the map justifies her
The Australian Government has pointed out that other regional concern at communications between cast and west and through the
powers have not reduced their armed forces and that there are a number Malacca Straits.
of causes for concern over regional stability.
Singapore's naval modernisation continues to be directly applicable
It can be demonstrated that the Australian Government is to her situation and dependence upon merchant shipping.
understating the position.
Japan's Navy, being steadily modernised with ships and aircraft
A number of regional nations arc modernising and/or expanding their capable of more distant operations in the protection of trade, clearly
maritime forces. In most cases, they have good strategic and defence considers the Soviet Union remains a threat. Japan rightly emphasises
reasons for this.
that the Soviet naval strappings are merely the disposal of obsolete and
Taiwan is replacing her surface combatant force and expanding her worn out ships and submarines. Production of new, larger and more
submarine force. The new frigates will be more modem and capable capable ships, submarines and aircrafts continues without sign of
editions than our own FFG7 class frigates. The design for tier II frigates cutbacks.
has not yet been finalised, but they will be similar in capability to our Although the Chinese Navy is having to struggle very hard to
own Anzacs. Taiwan's primary concern is the People's Republic of modernise her naval forces, which lag behind technologically, there is
China. She also claims resource-rich islands.
increasing evidence that she plans an aircraft carrier. Her nuclear
submarine programme continues. Clearly, her primary concern is the
Soviet Union.
Only India's naval expansion programme is unjustified by her
strategic circumstances. She already has a massive superiority of naval
Indonesian fast attack craft.
Thailand is enlarging her surface combatant force with new ships and
modem weapons. She has plans for submarines and an ASW helicopter
carrier. Her primary concern is Cambodia, but the situation in Myanmar
power over all other Indian Ocean littoral states including Australia
(who, in any case, must consider the South Pacific and northern
approaches as well). It is lime for Australia to take seriously some of the
national ambitions being advocated in India.
All this is before the effect is felt of the availability of surplus
weapons from disarming Warsaw Pact and NATO nations arid competing
hungry defence equipment suppliers.
Already, we bear of Thailand negotiating towards the acquisition of
some 650 surplus US Army tanks. Speculative comment has suggested
Indonesia as a recipient of Charles F. Adams class guided missile
destroyers.
Malaysian (left) and Singapore naval units.
The Navy, October-December. 1990 - 13