Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B
24/05/1994
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
Program 3--Army

Senator TEAGUE --On page 99 is the outlook for the coming financial year. Under the item `operations' there is a reference to our continuing to support UN peacekeeping. What is the extent of deployed defence personnel in various areas of UN peacekeeping now?

Lt Gen. Baker --The number of service personnel overseas at the moment is approximately 160.

Senator TEAGUE --Could I have on notice a list of the operations where those 160 personnel are deployed?

Senator Robert Ray --We are finding that information now.

Lt Gen. Baker --At the United Nations headquarters in New York we have a strength of six personnel; in the UNTSO in the Middle East we have 13 personnel; in the MINURSO in Western Sahara we have 45 personnel--you have to appreciate that they are in the process of coming back and some will be home tomorrow; in Blazer in Iraq, we have one person supporting UNSCOM; in Cambodia, which is not really a United Nations project but the personnel are contributing to the mine centre, we have six personnel; in Somalia we have 67 personnel; and in the MFO in Sinai we have 28 personnel. The total personnel deployed is 166. That number constantly varies.

Senator TEAGUE --I am not surprised by that. When is the Somalia detachment coming back?

Lt Gen. Baker --The security situation in Somalia is under review. November is the planned time for the release of the present detachment of 67 personnel.

CHAIRMAN --They have not been there for a long time.

Lt Gen. Baker --The latest detachment went this month.

Senator MacGIBBON --Is the Somalia detachment subject to review?

Senator Robert Ray --We will review whether they stay or not. There is no finite decision although most of the mandate runs out--

Major Gen. Connolly --It is being renewed and looked at by the UN at the present time. Our force is committed until November.

Senator MacGIBBON --Why did we put a finite time on the first battalion's deployment last year? This time we seem to have an imprecise posting?

Senator Robert Ray --I do not think UNOSOM has ever been imprecise. The reason we put a finite time on the first commitment, which was not strictly UN because it was US led, was that we had two alternatives. We could either supply a company without a time limit or supply a battalion with a time limit. You can imagine the cost differential. The emphasis was put on a battalion because it would be self-sustaining. The inability of the supply lines to sustain companies from various countries made it more desirable that we send a battalion. We did put a finite time on it--it is November this year. I am not going to rule out at least one more rotation, depending on the situation as we assess it.

Senator MacGIBBON --The United Nations has made a request for Australian forces to go to Rwanda. What is the nature of that request?

Senator Robert Ray --It was a general request indicating a possible contribution in four or five areas. These areas include movement control officers, communicators, engineers and medical personnel.

Senator MacGIBBON --How many personnel were requested?

Senator Robert Ray --It varies in the request but I think they are looking at around 300 personnel.

Senator MacGIBBON --How would the security of those forces be assured?

Senator Robert Ray --I make it very clear that we have made no commitment of any forces. I know that you understand that but a reporter watching may not. We have subtly changed our policy. Almost inevitably we make sure there is a security element. For instance, if we were to deploy 180 engineers I would also expect to deploy a rifle company to protect them.

Senator MacGIBBON --Given that it is a very bad type of tribal war that is being fought there and there is really no good or bad side, the matter of security is absolutely paramount. How are you going to support the rifle company that goes there? How are you going to guarantee access to them in a land locked country?

Senator Robert Ray --That is one of the factors that are taken into account before we commit. We have made it very clear that what we expect to see out of New York and the United Nations is viable intervention not non-viable intervention. We expect there to be a clear mission, clearly established timetable and political processes put in place for a possible resolution. None of those currently exist. There were probably two broad plans put to the United Nations and they have chosen a middle course probably taking the worst aspects of both plans. We do not find that very encouraging at the moment. Given the circumstances you have accurately described, one of the paramount matters on my mind is that before we commit any Australians to that area I must protect their security. If I cannot be assured of protecting their security we do not commit.

Senator MacGIBBON --It is all very well to say that you would put a rifle company in to support them but if you have engineers--

Senator Robert Ray --It depends where you are going.

Senator MacGIBBON --If you are going to put engineers, signallers and medical people into a country they are going to be dispersed around the countryside.

Senator Robert Ray --Not necessarily.

Senator MacGIBBON --Are you going to have them all in one spot?

Senator Robert Ray --You may have them all in the one spot. You may have them on the border at Tanzania and Uganda helping the reconstruction of refugee camps and you could protect them all there. The idea that you can insert people all over Rwanda and somehow protect the people you insert or keep the others apart is highly dubious.

Senator MacGIBBON --That is my point entirely. If they go into the country I cannot see how you can guarantee their security and their extraction if things go bad.

Senator Robert Ray --There are only two possibilities. The UN either intervenes for humanitarian reasons or peace enforcement reasons. There is no possibility of peacekeeping at the moment because there is no agreement between the sides. You can only go in at one end of the scale or the other. The scale of commitment between going in at the humanitarian end or going in at the peace enforcement end is probably somewhere in the ratio of five or 10 to one. There is no point going in for supposedly humanitarian reasons and thinking you can do a bit of peace enforcement on the side. You cannot. You are absolutely right about that.

Senator MacGIBBON --So it all really turns on the political objective of the commitment and that has not been defined yet?

Senator Robert Ray --No, it certainly has not been defined to our satisfaction. I am sure as a political force you are immensely disturbed and moved by what is happening in Rwanda but the response to it must be one that works, not one that makes things worse.

CHAIRMAN --There must be a possible solution?

Senator Robert Ray --There is always a possible solution but if you take the wrong course you make matters worse.

CHAIRMAN --I understand.

Senator TEAGUE --It must be a viable solution. Is there not a danger in current UN deployments, particularly since the operations in Somalia and Bosnia, of losing track of the foundations of what have been necessary principles for UN engagement in peacekeeping or even peace enforcement or humanitarian support? I think the UN is hugely overcommitted. I think there is a danger that there is a public expectation that wherever anything happens in the world the UN can solve it. I think there have to be traditional lines drawn. Is there not a danger that public expectation is going beyond what in fact are the traditional UN guidelines for deploying forces in various countries around the world?

Senator Robert Ray --There are really two aspects to that. One is whether they can totally engage in a whole series of operations at the one time and the lack of resources that member countries give the UN, especially in the area of military planning, makes it very difficult. At the moment there is potential need at a minimum in Africa, Somalia, Western Sahara, Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda, and maybe Liberia, et cetera. Heaven knows what the demand would be if the world really knew the true situation in the Caucasus, in Yemen or anywhere else.

The UN needs to get a couple of successful operations up and running and concluded, a la the operation in Namibia, which was successful. Cambodia was successful and Nicaragua had its successes. But the UN is in desperate need of a couple more successes to offset those frustrating areas where it has been unable to resolve the situation. Maybe concentrating on not trying to have too broader coverage and concentrating the resources and the efforts in certain achievable areas will do them good.

Senator TEAGUE --I agree entirely that Namibia and Cambodia were successful exercises and if we allow the UN to stray into too many deployments, especially those that are only half successful or worse, then we will debase the capacity of the UN to have successful Namibias and Cambodias. I think that caution is very much the order of the day.

Senator MacGIBBON --Was Cambodia successful?

Senator Robert Ray --Absolutely, in my view. But in measuring success, it is all relative. Several hundred thousand Cambodians have been able to resettle there. There is at least embryonic law and order--an embryonic justice system. There is some stability. There is some economic rate of growth. It is not a perfect society. It still has enormous problems. It really depends on whether you look at the static picture or you look at the moving picture. If you look at the static picture you might get depressed, if you look at the moving picture you might be enormously encouraged.

Senator MacGIBBON --In a narrow sense, the UN deployment was successful but it was not successful in the longer term. It gets back to the business of political objective of the commitment. Have we received any requests from Cambodia for assistance?

Senator Robert Ray --There have been--not so much in writing--requests made to several countries for military assistance, in particular.

Senator MacGIBBON --From whom did that come? Did it come from King Sihanouk or the government?

Senator Robert Ray --It came from one of the two prime ministers and one of the two defence ministers on different occasions. That request has been under consideration in a range of countries around the globe. There are, of course, a variety of problems to be overcome before this government can respond to that. We would not judge it to be a problem of a lack of equipment in the armed forces of Cambodia at the moment. There is a whole range of other weaknesses there that need to be addressed.

Senator MacGIBBON --As I understand it, there was a request both for arms and for personnel from Australia; is that true?

Senator Robert Ray --It was more a request for equipment than personnel.

Senator MacGIBBON --What equipment was requested?

Senator Robert Ray --Nothing specific at this stage.

Senator MacGIBBON --What is the government's response to that?

Senator Robert Ray --The government's response is that it is considering that. It is considering the views of all the countries in the region. It is considering the long-term consequences. These are not easy issues to resolve. These requests started to filter in about two weeks ago in a solid sense. Quite a deal of thought will be needed before this government responds.

Senator MacGIBBON --On the personnel issue, will the government consider committing personnel to Cambodia?

Senator Robert Ray --It is not on my agenda at the moment. It is not under my consideration.

Senator MacGIBBON --If personnel were committed, how would you ensure their security there?

Senator Robert Ray --That would be one of the reasons probably why it is not on my agenda at the moment.

Senator MacGIBBON --It is a very difficult situation in Cambodia because we have an insurgent operation there. In my judgment supplying materiel to the Cambodian army is a waste of time because it is so undisciplined and so untrained.

Senator Robert Ray --There is an enormous linkage between the ineffectiveness of the Cambodian armed forces and their lack of equipment and lack of training. It cannot be resolved just in one area. There is no use supplying equipment that will disappear and never be seen again. That is why it is difficult to resolve these issues. That is why there is not an instantaneous government response.

Senator MacGIBBON --Committing Australian defence personnel, while it might be an emotionally satisfying response, is both highly dangerous and likely to be totally ineffective.

Senator Robert Ray --We will have some personnel there. We are committed to help the training of the de-miners. That is a commitment we have had for a long while and one which we will continue for at least another two to three years. Any personnel that go there for that purpose know of the dangers involved because both our people here and our people in Cambodia pretty much keep apprised of the situation. During the problems of two or three weeks ago we made sure no personnel were in the danger areas. We will have personnel there doing de-mining training for some time.

Senator MacGIBBON --I think that is fair enough.

Senator Robert Ray --We will be providing them with some officer training within Australia over time. We will be helping with English language classes. We will be helping with and sharing our knowledge of malaria research. We will be helping with some very minor marine assistance. It all comes out of the defence cooperation program and anything over and above that would have to be a decision of the government not just a decision of the Department of Defence.

Senator MacGIBBON --There is no proposition at the moment to commit an infantry, company or a battalion or run something similar to the Vietnam training team?

Senator Robert Ray --When I say there is no proposition, I am fairly certain of that. I can only speak on behalf of myself but in the whole defence force there is no proposition.

Senator TEAGUE --Colonel Stuart has given invaluable service to Australia and Cambodia in recent years. Is the current weapons question resolved?

Lt Gen. Baker --I understand he was excused by the court martial from penalty.

Senator Robert Ray --That is in no way a setback to his tremendous contribution. It is just a minor thing on the way through as far as I am concerned.

Senator TEAGUE --I would regard it as very minor in the context of his enormously positive contribution to, as I say, Australia and Cambodia. I am glad it is resolved.

Senator MacGIBBON --What is the retirement age for majors?

Major Gen. Carter --A general service officer, 47; an officer in special categories, 55. It is currently under review. The criteria against which it is being reviewed is the necessity for fitness--that is, physical fitness and the capacity to perform the jobs.

Senator MacGIBBON --What is the retirement age for ORs?

Major Gen. Carter --It is 55.

Senator MacGIBBON --So you have an anomaly here. You have a major retiring at 47. How did that come about?

Major Gen. Carter --I am unable to give you the historical background to it. If you desire that I will have to take your question on notice.

Senator MacGIBBON --Would you agree it was an anomaly?

Major Gen. Carter --In the context of officer of other ranks, they have been changing over the years by rank. At a moment in time it looked anomalous, but when we looked at what we required the field grade officer to do--that is, the major--it appeared reasonable but it is still under review now. It is not under review because of any potential anomaly but because of the legitimacy of having a retirement age and what it is based on.

Senator MacGIBBON --But is there no parallel in the navy and air force of a similar drop in the retirement age?

Major Gen. Carter --There is not currently, and that is part of the reason why we are reviewing it.

Senator MacGIBBON --When do you expect the review to be completed?

Major Gen. Carter --Within a calendar year. The notion of our considering to vary it was brought forward to the Chief of the General Staff's advisory committee. The criterion to vary it was not clear. It became apparent that, if we are asking the majority of these people to serve in the field with troops, fitness ought to play a part in it. It is therefore under that review, with the requirement to report back in this calendar year on that finding. Moving from that to when we might seek to change the policy, I would say it would be 12 months.

Senator MacGIBBON --Surely fitness is a universal requirement.

Major Gen. Carter --It is. But it is fitness related to what we require these people to do. Major--which is the rank you asked me for--and ranks below that serve in the field leading troops. That is their predominant employment. It varies a little with more senior ranks and it varies in the profile with other ranks; not all of them do that.

Senator MacGIBBON --The performance statement on page 99 mentions preparedness. There is nothing about sustainability. Why is sustainability divorced from preparedness?

Lt Gen. Baker --Preparedness is a mixture of readiness and sustainability in the way that we use it within the ADF.

Senator MacGIBBON --Anyone reading that half page would be able to come to no conclusion about the sustainability of the army or the other two services. Is it of no importance?

Lt Gen. Baker --Some of those figures are classified.

Senator MacGIBBON --But, if you do not give some indication of sustainability, you really do not present an accurate picture, do you?

Lt Gen. Baker --That is true. But, on the other hand, the Chief of the Defence Force has his requirements spelt out to each of the services each year. They are required to report twice each year on their ability to meet the preparedness requirements of the ADF. So it is all reported on and examined regularly. Any significant variations between the directive and the ability of the services to meet it are immediately reported, and corrective actions are put in place to fix that.

Senator MacGIBBON --On this matter of confidentiality, do you seriously believe that analysts in other countries would not be able to come to an accurate assessment as to what holdings were in various munitions and war stocks?

Lt Gen. Baker --Some aspects of our readiness and preparedness would be questionable. It depends on how good their intelligence is. There is no reason why we should persist--

Senator MacGIBBON --I suggest to you, particularly in the guided missile fields, that the broad parameters of our stock holding would be revealed to anyone who had a will to find out.

Lt Gen. Baker --In some cases they are, but they do not know what forms of agreements we have for resupply and what we have in pipelines, et cetera.

Senator MacGIBBON --There ought to be something on sustainability, recognising your points about confidentiality. The presentation of that data makes it capable of presenting a misleading picture. It encourages a feeling of complacency that may not be justified.

Senator TEAGUE --I do not want to go into the ready reserves arena again in any great detail, but quite a large increase in the variation for the coming financial year is set out on page 112. An additional $10 million is required and there is a saving of $8 million from a decreased provision for full-time ready reserves associated with the continued implementation of the scheme. If it were not for that item, there would be an even bigger increase. Could you give me some perspective on the additional costs and an explanation of what this minus $8 million is about?

Major Gen. Carter --Yes. It has been necessary to continue to review the shortfall in category 2. Prior to the review, category 1 personnel--that is, regulars who are posted into the ready reserve scheme--numbered 821. Those recruited to be ready reservists--they do one year full time and then four years part time--numbered 2,280. The scheme was developed around the notion that we would be able to attract category 2 personnel--that is, ex-regulars and ex-reservists--to a quantity of 800. That was necessary in order to provide the junior leadership in some of the trade training.

It is clear, and has now become confirmed, that we are unlikely to achieve that figure. However, we need those category 2 people in order to provide instruction and leadership; that is, the jobs that were postulated. In the recent past, I have had to rebalance the distribution of the category 1 and category 3 people to recognise that long-term shortfall. I have therefore had to move the number of regulars from 821 to 1,233. That is therefore an on-cost to the regulars.

In some cases, I also had to seek to try to get some positions that I can genuinely fill part time with category 3 people. I have done that by increasing the number of category 3 people from 2,080 to 2,428. The diminution has been in the number of category 2 people, who dropped from 800 to 134. That is where it stands in the 6th Brigade, which is the predominant ready reserve unit. I have also proposed another 120 positions, which have to be scrutinised a little more to see where the costs will fall. Those small elements of the ready reserve not in the 6th Brigade have yet to be addressed. That is the whole story.

Senator TEAGUE --That means that there will be some commensurate savings from some of the budget estimates for regulars?

Major Gen. Carter --No. These are regulars who already existed. It is just that they have been diverted to be employed in the ready reserve scheme. Their costs are captured there.

Senator TEAGUE --This extra $10 million is above all that we know about for the army?

Major Gen. Carter --Globally, the wages bill will not vary for regulars. It is just that those which are attributed to the ready reserve scheme--

Senator TEAGUE --That is what I mean.

Major Gen. Carter --You are correct.

Senator TEAGUE --Can you quickly give me an estimate of that compensatory saving in the regulars who had not originally been deployed to the ready reserve?

Major Gen. Carter --It would be of a comparable order.

Senator TEAGUE --That is helpful. On page 114, there is a variation in the level of anticipated settlement for compensation claims. The unexpected amount is an additional $7.5 million. Could I have an explanation regarding that amount. Whose compensation is it? What is the explanation for it?

Major Gen. Carter --I am advised that we are now subject to the introduction of the military compensation scheme, which came in in April 1994. The impact of that scheme through our vote has been determined at this figure in the first instance by the current financial year. The change of that compensation scheme has caused us to look at our potential liability. I cannot do more than that. If you want further detail, I will have to take it on notice.

Senator TEAGUE --So it is an estimate of the reserve you will require, given the new scheme's start in April?

Major Gen. Carter --That is correct.

Senator TEAGUE --It is not the sum total of some unexpected compensation payouts?

Major Gen. Carter --No. It is purely our estimate of our liability under that scheme.

Senator MacGIBBON --I would like to raise the matter of civilian employment by the army. A young lady wrote to me. She had applied for a job as an administrative service officer at the School of Military Intelligence in Canungra. She was told that she was appointed and then she was told that it was all a mistake. She sent me the files and I am satisfied that the story is basically correct. On the basis of the job offer she went out and made certain arrangements to her private affairs, bought some clothing and all the rest of it. How often is that sort of mistake made? Someone in the civilian area was selected and told they were appointed to a job and then was later told that it was all a mistake?

Major Gen. Carter --Firstly, I have no knowledge of the case. Secondly, if you wish to pursue that matter I will have to take it on notice and advise the minister as to the outcome. Thirdly, I do not know that it was a mistake and am unable therefore to sign up to the notion that it was. In any event, if there is a matter of detail that you do wish me to pick up on, I will be pleased to do so and advise the minister's office.

Senator MacGIBBON --I just wanted to pursue it in the generality rather than in the particular. It seemed to me that the selection process was very inefficient when that sort of thing happened. The candidate was informed both verbally and in writing that one of the criteria used for the selection would not be assessed in the final marks, yet in fact it was. That was acknowledged in the subsequent correspondence. It hardly seems fair that that statement was made to the candidate at the time.

Major Gen. Carter --I am unable to pursue the particularities of it. In my division I have working for me the officer whose business it is to make sure that positions advertised are correctly job prescribed and that the process for selection withstands scrutiny. I have a mechanism for doing it and it is an alive issue. I do not know enough. You are offering me as fact--I will take your word for it--things that I do not know to be fact.

Senator MacGIBBON --I am only putting them forward as fact because I think I have the complete file that was supplied by the Defence centre to the candidate. It is all there and it seemed that there was, quite bluntly, very sloppy office work.

CHAIRMAN --Do you wish to pursue the matter?

Senator MacGIBBON --I am just bringing it to Major General Carter's attention.

Major Gen. Carter --I am happy to pursue it if it comes to me and I will advise the minister's office of the outcome.

Senator MacGIBBON --Is it correct that the army is going to downgrade the 3rd Field Ambulance at Warradale to the level of a medical company?

Major Gen. Carter --I am aware of the background to your question. The 3 Field Ambulance is probably the oldest of its type unit serving the Australian Army and it is the heritage we have from the South African war, so we are not unaware. We have grouped the medical resources together with the supply and maintenance resources that support brigades into brigade administrative support batalions. That is a lieutenant colonels' commands and the elements of it tend to be majors' commands. In doing that broad thing--we have done it across the army, regular and reserve--it is now apparent that if we apply that in South Australia we are likely to get the unintended consequence of losing 3 Field Ambulance and the heritage that goes with that title. We are, on the one hand, seeking to preserve the title although it will appear anomalous. We will do it for heritage reasons. On the other, the size of the component and the level of command is not yet resolved.

Senator MacGIBBON --But this is going on across the army, as you say.

Major Gen. Carter --Across the army.

Senator MacGIBBON --I have had complaints from not only South Australia about that but also from Queensland, New South Wales and other medical units.

Major Gen. Carter --We are coming at it from two perspectives. One is reviewing medical per se; the other is this business. Because they are largely under reserve units and the heritage tends to reside in their title as well as what they do, we are alive to it. The outcome will be anomalous in the sense of uniformity of application, but it will do the best we are able to to preserve heritage where it is worth preserving.

Senator MacGIBBON --What is the purpose of it all?

Major Gen. Carter --The purpose of it is to try to take out the overheads that you get when you have separate supply services, separate maintenance services, separate transport services and separate medical services--to put them together so that there is one dedicated brigade combat support organisation. It is a one-stop shop notion and within that we take out the administrative overheads. The brigade commander has one point of command to get all his support together and we are able to get a uniformity of doctrine and performance out of a cohesive organisation. I believe that part of it is very clear. It is a logical outgrowth of what we have been doing in the regular army. We are now looking at the consequences.

Senator MacGIBBON --How many medical officers would be involved, then, in the support battalion? One? Half a dozen?

Major Gen. Carter --I cannot answer the question directly, nor can I say it slices out quite like that because the support battalion has a fixed establishment which is capable of immediate reinforcement if required. In the medical sense you normally have behind it something along the lines of a hospital which has the capacity to immediately field surgical effort if that is required. So you have two things: the steady state and the proposed reinforced state. If you want the actual figures I must take the question on notice.

Senator MacGIBBON --So the support battalion will be the usual half-colonel posting and the medical attachment will be a major as a senior medical officer?

Major Gen. Carter --That is the way we foresee it, but it may well turn out that for other professional reasons to do with the development of medical officers we may get the situation of a lieutenant colonel commanding the entire organisation and subordinate elements also having lieutenant colonels. There is no necessary impediment to that.

Senator MacGIBBON --How will you fit in the specialist medical officers, particularly surgeons within the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps? Will this have any impact on the retention of those people? Will they be able to go to the field hospitals rather than field ambulances? How will they be assigned?

Major Gen. Carter --There are two types of reserve service here. There are those that are held against the establishments of units and there are those that are available in the community on call who have allowed themselves to be reservists on the inactive reserve. I have asked--therefore I cannot answer the question today but I will shortly be able to--where all the specialists reside, what specialties they have and what the conduit is for getting from these establishments to their services. I cannot answer your question, but I am aware of what you are getting to.

Senator MacGIBBON --Would it be a fair assumption, then, that the reserve career potential with respect to active reserve service is going to be abridged by this, that you are going to have a ceiling of major or maybe lieutenant colonel in the reservists?

Major Gen. Carter --It is potentially the case but we have not shrunk them entirely into the field ambulance area. We are also looking at other locations for both reservists and regulars in brigades themselves--senior medical officers--and we are looking for a variety of medical service. But I must say, the criteria is the delivery of the medical service and, following that, the career development of the individuals within it.

Senator MacGIBBON --Have you been able to make any estimates of what financial savings will flow from this?

Major Gen. Carter --We are looking at the prospect of manpower redistribution. We are seeking to get manpower out of the four elements--medical, maintenance, transport and supply--to move to the field force. The impetus behind it is to make it a lean, minimum overhead organisation so that the manpower can be shifted. Again, if you want the detail of it, I will have to take it as a question on notice.

Senator MacGIBBON --We have had a number of deployments overseas with peacekeeping and the rest of it. I have some questions on the statistics of the health of the forces deployed. Do you have those figures here?

Major Gen. Carter --No, but I can make the general observation that in all of our UN deployments we have had the specific business of collecting health statistics not only for the incidence of injury and illness, but also as a general database for service in those regions. The Surgeon General would be in a position to furnish that and, again, if there is a specific question I would be able to pass the response through the minister's office.

Senator MacGIBBON --Minister, do we not usually have the Surgeon General here? Is he here today?

Lt Gen. Baker --I think the Surgeon General is overseas at the moment. I would need to check that.

Senator Robert Ray --I will get you a reply in a couple of minutes.

Senator MacGIBBON --I would be interested in the health statistics of those forces to see whether a comparison was done between Somalia and Cambodia, particularly in relation to malaria and how effective the anti-malarial programs are that are being followed and what the incidence of injuries were. Maybe we can go into that at the next hearing.

Senator Robert Ray --Thank you for that, Senator. I will find out where the Surgeon General is. We will take that part of the question on notice and have a response and a person present at our next hearing on 21 June.