defence force journal...general geoff carter, brigadier paul yonge and lieutenant colonel len...

NO.148

MAY/JUNE

2001

A U S T R A L I A N

JOURNAL

JOU

RN

AL

OF

TH

E A

US

TR

AL

IAN

PR

OF

ES

SIO

N O

F A

RM

S

DEFENCEForce

Australian Defence Force Journal

Board of ManagementBrigadier Steve Ayling, AM (Chairman)Air Commodore Ken BirrerGroup Captain Allan CroweColonel Roger DaceColonel Michael GoodyerBronwen Grey

Contributions of any length will be considered but, as a guide, 3000 words is the ideal length. Articles should betyped double spaced, on one side of the paper, or preferablysubmitted on disk in a word processing format. Hardcopyshould be supplied in duplicate.

All contributions and correspondence should be addressed to:The EditorAustralian Defence Force JournalR8-LG-001Russell OfficesCANBERRA ACT 2600(02) 6265 1193Fax (02) 6265 6972

CopyrightThe material contained in the Australian Defence Force Journalis the copyright of the Department of Defence. No part ofthe publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwisewithout the consent of the Editor.

Email: [email protected]/pacc/dfj/

© Commonwealth of Australia 2001ISSN 1320-2545Published by the Department of DefenceCanberra 2001

Karen GriffithDr Ron HuiskenMr Darryl JohnstonCaptain Peter Leschen, RANColonel Paul McGraneLieutenant Colonel Ian Wing

Editor

Irene M. Coombes

Printed in Australia by National Capital Printing, Fyshwick, ACT 2609

Contributors are urged to ensure the accuracy of the information contained

in their articles; the Board of Management accepts no responsibility for

errors of fact. Permission to reprint articles in the Journal will generally be

readily given by the Editor after consultation with the author. Any

reproduced articles should bear an acknowledgement of source.

The views expressed in the articles are the author’s own and should not be

construed as official opinion or policy.

DEFENCEForce

JOURNAL

Editor

Irene M. Coombes

Contributors are urged to ensure the

accuracy of the information contained in

their articles; the Board of Management

accepts no responsibility for errors of fact.

Permission to reprint articles in the Journal

will generally be readily given by the

Editor after consultation with the

author. Any reproduced articles should bear

an acknowledgement of source.

The views expressed in the articles are the

author’s own and should not be construed as

official opinion or policy.

Front Cover and page 2.

Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey, painting by Sir William Dargie.

Printed in Australia

by National Capital Printing,

Fyshwick, ACT 2609

A U S T R A L I A N

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. Dedication

5. Foreword

7. Acknowledgements

9. Field Marshal Sir Thomas BlameyCentenary OrationMajor General K.G. Cooke, AO, RFD, ED

15. Sir Thomas Blamey: ChiefCommissioner of the Victoria PoliceChief Commissioner Neil Comrie, AO,APM

21. Understanding the Office of theGovernor-General of AustraliaThe Right Honourable Sir ZelmanCowen, AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC, DCL

27. Blamey and National SecurityBrigadier P.J. Greville, CBE, BE

33. Manpower Limits on the AustralianWar EffortThe Right Honourable Sir Paul Hasluck,KG, GCMG, GCVO

43. Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blameyand the Australian ArmyProfessor David Horner

53. Military LeadershipGeneral Sir Francis Hassett, AC, KBE, CB,DSO, LVO

65. Blamey and Training for WarGeneral Sir Phillip Bennett, AC, KBE,DSO

71. Anzac Values – The Path Travelledand the Road AheadMajor General P.R. Phillips AO, MC

NO. 148

MAY/JUNE

2001

3

DEDICATIONThis publication, on the 50th anniversary of his death,

is dedicated to the memory of the first Australian born military commander

to be appointed to the highest military rank of Field Marshal

in the Australian Military Forces on 8 June 1950 –

Field Marshal Sir Thomas Albert Blamey GBE KCB CMG DSO ED

Born 24 January 1884 – Died 27 May 1951

General Blamey with men of the New Guinea Force, 1942. AWM Neg 013422

5

This Special Edition, published to mark the 50th anniversary of the death of Field Marshal SirThomas Blamey, is a tribute to a great Australian. Blamey has been described by his mostrecent biographer, military historian and former Army officer, Professor David Horner, Strategicand Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, as “Australia’s greatest and mostimportant soldier. Indeed he was a major figure in Australian history”.

While some may question the accolade of “greatest”, Blamey was undoubtedly a colossus interms of his achievements spanning the two great wars of the last century. He was also uniqueamong the highest level Allied commanders of the Second World War, in that he commanded atsenior levels over the six long years of war from 1939 to 1945 including three and a halfdemanding years as Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Military Forces.

His importance in Australia’s history extends beyond his command appointments in the MiddleEast and subsequently from 1942 to 1945, when our security was directly threatened for the firsttime as a result of the Japanese campaign in the Pacific. A major contribution between the greatwars had been to provide the impetus to establish a well-structured Army together with aneffective organisation and complex administrative and national support systems that included anecessary industrial, manufacturing and manpower planning base. His contributions to thedevelopment of mobilisation planning for Australia’s defence capacity, national military strategy,and higher command arrangements was also both outstanding and far-sighted.

During the Second World War Blamey also displayed exceptional political acumen and a fiercedetermination in robustly defending Australia’s political and strategic interests in the face ofconsiderable military and political pressure to disperse his command in support of larger UK andUS formations.

The Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey Memorial Fund and the Department of Defence are tocommended for this timely reminder, particularly to those presently serving in the Defence Forcetoday, of the outstanding national contribution of a great Australian military leader, whoseachievements were finally recognised by his being appointed Australia’s first and only native bornField Marshal in the 100 year history of our Australian Services.

Sir William DeaneGovernor-General of the Commonwealth of AustraliaCommander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force

FOREWORD

The Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey Square.

7

With the agreement of the Board of Management of the Australian Defence Force Journal,this Special Edition marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Field Marshal Sir ThomasBlamey GBE KCB CMG DSO ED. The publication coincides with the 27 May 2001 renamingceremony of the original Blamey Square in the Defence complex at Russell Offices as “The FieldMarshal Sir Thomas Blamey Square.”

The idea for a Special Edition was proposed by the Field Marshal Sir Thomas BlameyMemorial Fund in Melbourne under the Chairmanship of Brigadier Ian Gilmore OBE and waspassed to a Canberra based group of members to organise. This group included a coordinator,General Sir Phillip Bennett, and Professor David Horner, Major General Michael Keating, MajorGeneral Geoff Carter, Brigadier Paul Yonge and Lieutenant Colonel Len Boswell.

Our task was to select from the available records of all Blamey Orations a number of paperswhich, collectively, would present a true and balanced insight into the wide range of Blamey’soutstanding contribution to the nation. The aim was to cover all of his major activities, interests andachievements as both a soldier and a civilian administrator, as well as a planner, leader andcommander.

That objective has been met by the editorial group who express their appreciation to allauthors and The Hon Justice Nicholas Paul Hasluck for their kind permission to incorporate theselected orations. The group is similarly indebted to the permission of the National President, AirMarshal David Evans and his Constituent Bodies of the Royal United Services Institute ofAustralia to republish those orations identified in this Special Edition as having been included invarious RUSI magazines in previous years.

Allied with this Special Edition, the Memorial Fund has also arranged with the RUSI for aseries of Blamey Orations to be given throughout Australia close to the time of the renaming ofThe Blamey Square in Canberra in May this year.

Finally, on behalf of the Chairman, Committee and Members of the Memorial Fund, I extendappreciation to Professor Horner for his considerable editorial contribution to this edition, as wellas the publication in this Special Edition of his Blamey Oration given at the RUSI in Canberra on2nd May 2001. His experience and advice has been invaluable, as has the professional assistanceand cooperation of Mr Michael Tracey previous Managing Editor of the Australian Defence ForceJournal and Mrs Irene Coombes as Editor.

This Special Edition has much to offer all military and civilian officers, senior non-commissioned officers and their equivalents on the achievements of Australia’s most successfuland influential senior military commander. Importantly, it highlights his outstanding nationalcontribution post-World War I to the organisation, command and readiness of the AustralianMilitary Forces for war in 1939.

It will also be of interest to all Australians to learn that General Douglas MacArthur, Blamey’sSupreme Commander in the South West Pacific, wrote the following words in a letter on 15December 1954 to former Lieutenant General Sir Edmund Herring supporting a memorial toBlamey in Melbourne:

“I have always felt that his services in the Second World War were not sufficiently recognized.What he did cannot be overestimated, and his contribution to the defeat of Japan marked him asone of the great soldiers of our time. Australia and, indeed, the whole free world owes him a debtof gratitude which would take symbolical form in this memorial.”

This is indeed a fitting assessment of Australia’s greatest and most important military commander.This Special Edition of orations is therefore published to honour his memory and to give all

Australians a greater understanding of his exceptional military and public service to our nation.

General Sir Phillip Bennett AC KBE DSO (Retd)Project Coordinator

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Major General Blamey with members of the 3rd Division Engineers Militia in camp at Wesburn, Victoria 1936.AWM Neg PO 2475.001

9

There must be something special about aman who on the centenary of his birth and33 years after his death can still trigger agathering of so many people, including somany busy and distinguished people, in aMelbourne park on a Tuesday morning inJanuary. So let us take a few minutes to reviewbriefly the life of Thomas Albert Blamey to tryand determine just how this can be.

He was born on 24 January 1884 on theoutskirts of Wagga Wagga, the seventh of theten children of Richard and Margaret Blamey.His father had tried his luck at farming, both inQueensland and New South Wales, but as wasoften the case the ventures ended in disasterdue to the old traditional enemies of drought,bush fire and fluctuating cattle prices. He thensettled in Wagga where he earned his living asa contract drover. His was a pioneer family sotypical of the time and it exemplified thestrength of our immigrant stock both beforeand since.

Young Tom was educated in Wagga, firstat the government school and then for the lasttwo years at the Grammar School to which hewon a place on his pure ability. His upbringinggenerally was as you would expect; he had tohelp around the family property before andafter school and on vacations he worked as atar-boy in the local shearing sheds. As he grewolder he went on several droving trips to helphis father. His was a rugged but healthy life,designed to instil a familiarity with hard workand to develop a sense of self-confidence andself-reliance. Like many of our famous soldiers,he obtained his first taste of military lifethrough the Cadet Corps. During his last two

years at school he was the head cadet of hisunit and showed an aptitude for leadership andmilitary skills.

At the ripe old age of 16 he became a pupilteacher at the local school where he continuedhis interest in the cadet movement as an officerof cadets. Some people in later life may havefound it hard to believe at times that the youngTom was a Methodist Church preacher and anactive worker for church causes.

In 1903, aged 19, he decided to try his luckin distant fields and obtained a teachingappointment to Fremantle, Western Australia.He continued his association with the cadetsand also with the Church and was close toentering the Ministry as his chosen full-timecareer when in 1906 he saw an advertisementoffering entry to the Permanent CadetInstructional Staff. He decided that this was forhim and studied hard to finish third on anAustralia-wide basis. Initially, however, he wasrejected, not because of his ability but becausethe Army was reluctant to pay his cost ofremoval to Victoria and there were no postingsthen available in Western Australia. By arefusal to accept defeat combined with a goodshowing, even then, of his knowledge of staffduties, he managed to alter that decision andwas enlisted into the cadet organisation as alieutenant aged 22.

He married in 1909 on the princely salaryof £250 a year. Since his first son was born in1910 it must have been with someconsiderable relief that he was promotedcaptain in December 1910 and his payincreased to £ 375 pounds a year.

Field Marshal Sir Thomas BlameyCentenary Oration

By Major General K. G. Cooke, AO, RFD, ED

Address to the Royal United Service Institution of Victoria, 24 January 1984.

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL NO. 148 MAY / JUNE 200110

In 1911 he won, again by hard work,intensive private study and by burning themidnight oil, a much-coveted place to the StaffCollege at Quetta in India. After successfullycompleting that course his family returneddirect to Australia where his second son, Tom,was born. Tom Senior went to the UnitedKingdom for further training and experience.

At the outbreak of war he was serving onthe staff of the headquarters of a territorial

division. When the first AIF was formed andsent to the Middle East it was natural that T.A.Blamey, then a major, should joinHeadquarters lst Division as a staff officer inEgypt. He was with it when it landed atGallipoli on that historic 25 April 1915. Heserved there throughout the campaign, helpingto raise Headquarters 2nd Division with whichhe served until the evacuation in December1915.

Gallipoli Peninsula, Turkey. Major Blamey is seen using periscope, 3 May 1915.AWM Neg G00943

FIELD MARSHAL SIR THOMAS BLAMEY CENTENARY ORATION 11

In July 1916 he was promoted lieutenantcolonel and appointed General Staff OfficerGrade 1 of Headquarters lst Division for thecampaigns in Europe. He commanded the 2ndBattalion for a short time and the lst InfantryBrigade only briefly. It was a source ofpersonal regret to him that his skills as a staffofficer were so much in demand that he wasgiven little chance for command in the field.

When General Monash was appointed tocommand the lst Australian Corps on 1st June1918 he selected Blamey to be his chief of staffwith the rank of brigadier general. Thecombination of Monash and Blamey wasresponsible for some of the most outstandingvictories of the War. The battle of Hamel was aworld first for the successful integration ofinfantry, artillery, tanks and aircraft andprovided a model for subsequent applicationby British and other armies. The battle ofAmiens was said to be the blow which led tothe shattering of the Hindenburg Line. ABritish military historian, Major GeneralEssame, in The Battle for Europe 1918 wrote:“Monash and Blamey unquestionably outshoneall their British counterparts in ability andbattle expertise”. On Blamey, Monash wrote:“Some day the orders which he drafted for thelong series of history making militaryoperations upon which we collaborated willbecome the model for staff colleges andschools for military instruction”. They did.

After World War I Blamey continued in theRegular Army becoming what was later knownas the Deputy Chief of the General Staff. In1925 he was asked to give up his militarycareer to accept appointment as the VictorianCommissioner of Police. It was considered thatthe Police Force then was in need of stability,firm control and proper direction, which werenot immediately available from within theforce itself. Blamey agreed. At the same timehe joined the militia, rising to the rank ofmajor general and Commander of the 3rdDivision in 1931, a posting he held until 1937.His term as Police Commissioner was a stormy

one, beset with personal and political incidents.He resigned from the force in 1936.

Things then looked bleak for Blamey. As aman who then lacked influence he suddenlyfound that he also lacked friends andsupporters. A number of real friends, whoknew Blamey better and were loyal to Blameythe man, stood by him in those depressingyears. During that period he refused to give into adversity. He commenced, under apseudonym, giving defence related talks onRadio 3UZ warning of the coming worldconflict and of Australia’s lack of preparedness.No doubt this helped to keep him in touch withmilitary matters.

As international tension increased theGovernment looked for a man strong enough,experienced and capable enough to help inbelated war preparations. Blamey was selectedas the first Chairman of the ManpowerCommittee and Controller General of theRecruiting Secretariat. In the six monthsbetween September 1938 and March 1939 hewas responsible for successfully effecting adoubling of the strength of the militia from35,000 to 70,000 - a feat considered by manybeforehand as an impossible achievement.

Then with the outbreak of hostilities andthe raising of the second AIF there came theneed to select a commander for the 6thDivision - the first Australian force to leave foroverseas. Blamey, who was then aged 55, wasselected, not without controversy, over allothers. Probably it was this appointment morethan any other incident that made him thecentre of jealousy and the subject of intrigue,which was to haunt him for the balance of hismilitary life.

It represented, however, the start of whatwas, no doubt, to be the finest part of his longcareer. He was promoted lieutenant general in1940 and general in 1941. He successively heldthe appointments of General OfficerCommanding 6th Division, General OfficerCommanding Australian Forces Egypt,Commander 1st Australian Corps, Commander


Anzac Corps in Greece, Deputy Commander-in-Chief Middle East, Commander-in-ChiefAustralian Military Forces and at the sametime Commander of Allied Land Forces in theSouth West Pacific Area.

There are many things that can be saidabout this period of his life but I shall selectjust four matters upon which I shall brieflycomment. First, he was the only land forcecommander in any Allied army to retaincommand throughout the war. He commandedthe first Australian force to be raised foroverseas service in September 1939 and wascommanding the whole Australian Army sixyears later. That, in itself, in the militaryhistory of any country in the world, must berated as an outstanding achievement.

Second, he fought hard throughout thisperiod to protect the integrity of the AustralianArmy from the interference of and subjugationto its allies. He continually resisted powerfulpressures in the Middle East, emanating fromChurchill himself and flowing downwards, toprevent what he saw as the misuse ofAustralian troops. Similarly, he clashed withMacArthur and refused to give in to proposalsto use Australian troops in the Pacificcampaigns in ways he considered were againstthe best interests of this country andparticularly of its soldiers.

Third, the nature of his responsibilities andspan of control was perhaps unique andunbelievably demanding. He had to organisethe Army from virtually nothing. He had toweld the volunteer AIF and the mainly-conscript militia into a single viable force.From his appointment as Commander-in-Chiefin March 1942 until the end of the war he wasobliged to retain responsibility not only foroperations in the field but at the same time forthe day-to-day organisation, administrationand training of the Army at home togetherwith the support of the total force. This breadthof responsibility did not occur in other armiesand I doubt, indeed I hope, we would never putthat load on another man again.

Fourth, it is interesting to consider just afew comments made about him by importantcontemporaries. Prime Minister Curtin, onBlamey’s appointment as Commander-in-Chiefand in answer to his detractors, said: “I want acommander of the Australian Army, not aSunday school superintendent”. Field MarshalWavell, when Commander-in-Chief in theMiddle East, said of Blamey: “He was probablythe best soldier we had in the Middle East. Notan easy man to deal with but a verysatisfactory man to deal with. His militaryknowledge was unexampled and he was apositive, firm and a very satisfactorycommander”.

In retrospect, is it not possible that the socalled “faults” of which he was often accusedmay indeed have been a very necessary step inhis development to make him just the manAustralia needed in its time of danger? Could,for example, an over-sensitive person havecarried it through? Could a man withoutsupreme confidence in his own ability and thejustice of his own cause have stuck it out?Could an individual without a resoluteness ofcharacter, strength of purpose, evenstubbornness, have been able to resist themany pressures that were put on him?

Perhaps even what seemed to have beenthe most unfortunate of his experiences mayhave helped to shape him for the greatdemands the war placed on him. For example,in referring to Blamey’s police career, MajorGeneral Sir John Gellibrand, said: “It widenedhis outlook and gave him a deeper insight intothe greater problems of national life andmilitary service”. The most stringent test thatcan be applied to any person, particularly awartime commander, is that of success orfailure and there can be no argument Blameydid succeed.

I am not saying that no one else could havecommanded the Australian Army at the timeor even have done so with less controversy.What I am saying is that Blamey did commanda victorious Army from start to finish, raising

FIELD MARSHAL SIR THOMAS BLAMEY CENTENARY ORATION 13

and training it virtually from scratch, with attimes little support and against many internaland external pressures. For that he deservesgreat credit and the gratitude of the nation. Didhe get it? He did not! His services wereterminated in November 1945 on just 14 daysnotice. He received no pension, gratuity orreward (except for his old car which had alsosurvived the rigours of campaigning in theMiddle East and the Pacific) until, in 1950when, less than twelve months before hisdeath, he was promoted to the rank of FieldMarshal, the only Australian soldier before orsince to have been so honoured.

During most of its history so far Australiahas had an unfortunate tradition of notproperly acknowledging its truly great men.Deakin, Hughes, Monash, Blamey, Bruce,Curtin, Chifley, Menzies are all names thatcome to mind yet we go out of our way tomake legendary heroes of bushrangers andsportsmen. We eulogise many who display notthe slightest trace of public spiritedness orsocial conscience and who possess many moreobnoxious or damaging vices than were everexhibited by the Field Marshal.

Perhaps as a nation we are changing.Maybe Australia is growing up. I do detect inrecent times an emergence of national pride inthis country and the ability to recognise thestrength of a community leader while at thesame time acknowledging that he or she is stilla human being. In short, I believe we arestarting to learn that we can have a supermanwith every man’s weaknesses.

If so, then perhaps it can be of benefit tofuture generations to remember T.A. Blameyand learn the lessons that a study of his lifewill reveal. He should demonstrate to

Australians of the future that a public figure, aleader, can have and indeed should beexpected to have normal human attributes -weaknesses as well as strengths. Further, it willbe seen that in this country it matters not whatis one’s origin or beginnings. It should becomeapparent that study, hard work, attention todetail, perseverance, a sense of achievementand a refusal to accept defeat will win through.It will become obvious that the highestpositions in the land are open to those who tryand are prepared to keep trying. Furthermore,students of Blamey would learn that Australiaand Australians are not inferior to othercountries and races, that we can and will standon our own feet and, if necessary, pursue anindependent line. Finally, they will seedemonstrated the value of loyalty, bothpersonal loyalty and group loyalty. They willlearn that loyalty is a necessary ingredient ofsuccess and that if one expects to receive itthen one must also give it, that it is a two-wayarrangement.

In T.A. Blamey we have the embodiment ofthe real Australian character and therefore heforms an important part of our evolvinghistory. It is our responsibility to ensure thathis story is not forgotten, as has been the casewith so many others, but that it is passed on tofuture generations to help establish anddevelop our ongoing traditions. What morefitting occasion is there than this, thecentenary of his birth, to pledge that we shallensure that the Blamey legend lasts for thenext 100 years and beyond. So, in that way, hewill continue to serve his country andcontribute to the preservation of its way of lifeas he showed himself so ready and so willingto do during his lifetime.

Major General Cooke ED was Commander of the 3rd Division when he presented this paper. Hewas Chief of Army Reserves from 1985 to 1988.

Blamey as the 10th Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police.Photograph by kind permission of the Victoria Police

15

Iam extremely honoured to have been invitedto deliver this oration because of Sir ThomasBlamey’s very close connection with VictoriaPolice. He was the 10th Chief Commissionersince the force was formed in 1853; I am the18th.

No Chief Commissioner has had an easytask. By its very nature policing isunpredictable, crisis-driven and often impactedby media reporting. My experiences with themodern media are regularly frustrating andsometimes a little tense. But I can always getrapid solace from an examination of ThomasBlamey’s time in the chair. He was the subjectof many media leaks from disgruntledmembers and it is little surprise that he actuallydrove the press from their comfortable room atRussell Street headquarters and forced them toline up with the public and get their news fromthe Enquiry Office counter! When I joined theforce in 1967, the Press Room had alreadybeen re-established.

Blamey had come to the position highlyregarded. Chief Commissioner AlexanderNicholson had limped along after the 1923police strike. He suffered considerable ill healthand his leadership had been soundly criticisedby a 1924 Royal Commission chaired by SirJohn Monash.

The Chief Secretary, Dr Stanley Argyle, hadmet the Inspector General of the AustralianMilitary Forces, Sir Harry Chauvel, in an earlymorning stroll through the botanic gardens.Chauvel knew that Nicholson was to bereplaced and recommended his deputy ThomasBlamey to Argyle. The Chief Secretary, whowas still reeling from the fact that some of the

Melbourne police had gone on strike, alongwith the three deaths and extensive riotingwhich had occurred, welcomed this. Blamey’sappointment was also strongly supported byMonash who had a very close militaryrelationship with Blamey during the FirstWorld War. On being asked to take on theChief Commissioner’s position, Blameytransferred to the militia and rose to commandthe 3rd Division with the rank of majorgeneral.

Blamey was seen as a decisive and skilfulorganiser whose appointment was wellreceived by the business community many ofwhom had suffered financially during thestrike because several insurance companies hadavoided compensation payments by attributingdamage to civil commotion which wasexcluded from coverage.

General Blamey was appointed ChiefCommissioner on 1 September 1925 aged 41.His initial term was five years and his contractwas extended by three years in 1930. Duringhis 11-year police career, Blamey survived fivechanges of government and an unprecedentedchallenge to his tenure of office. His fortunesdepended largely upon the colour of thegovernment with his most successful yearsunder the conservatives whose values and viewof the world he shared.

Labor politicians identified Blamey as amember of the establishment with little feelingfor the working classes. Whereas in actual factBlamey was born in Wagga as one of tenchildren and could never be described as beingborn with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Sir Thomas Blamey: Chief Commissioner ofthe Victoria Police

By Chief Commissioner Neil Comrie, AO, APM

Address to the Royal United Service Institution of Victoria, 28 May 1998 by the ChiefCommissioner of the Victoria Police.


A change of government in 1930 sawBlamey forced to re-apply for his own positionwhile still under contract, no doubt quite anordeal for a person such as Blamey. The HoganLabor Government reduced the appointmentfrom the usual five years to three and cut hissalary by a third.

In 1933 with a change of government, theconservatives appointed him ChiefCommissioner for life and returned his salaryto the previous level. Ironically within threeyears he was forced to resign following theRoyal Commission into the “Brophy” Affair –more about that later.

The Blamey period was marked by crisis.He often exacerbated problems by leaping tothe defence of the men under him in a waywhich was suited to the military struggle butcame back to bite the Chief Commissionerwhen corruption and malpractice was sheetedhome.

Upon his appointment serious allegationsof corruption were being laid against threedetectives from the Licensing Branch. Oneinspired much publicity by going missing forseveral days and another turned up in amental institution. Eventually they werecharged. All were later convicted and jailedamong continuing publicity. HoweverBlamey was so highly regarded in somecircles that his appointment as ChiefCommissioner was of itself enough to endmoves for an inquiry into alleged policecorruption and maladministration.

Blamey was an extremely talentedadministrator. He could organise and deployresources with well-planned effectiveness.Unfortunately, his personal lifestyle and ethicalstandards were incompatible with his positionas the state’s top law enforcer. Seeminglynaively he expected the public and the press inparticular to distinguish between his officialposition and his private life. It was very mucha case of “do as I say rather than as I do”which posed particular problems for a personin his position.

Within the first two months ofappointment, his police identification (Badgenumber 80) was used by a male to avoid arrestin a brothel in Bell Street, Fitzroy. The matterwas raised in Parliament. This was followed byan internal inquiry in which the ChiefCommissioner claimed his badge had been lostsome days before the incident and was laterreturned anonymously to his mail point in theNaval and Military Club.

Very early in his term Blamey took on thePolice Association. He did not believe that atrade union was in keeping with the role andduties of police. He thought the PoliceAssociation was run by communists and heregarded it with a real hatred. At one stage,Blamey had the Association’s civilian secretarycharged with an obscure offence against thePolice Regulation Act – conspiring to induce amember to commit a disciplinary offence. Thesecretary received a term of imprisonment. Onappeal, this was reduced to a fine.

Blamey established an annual policeconference comprising 29 elected rep-resentatives to weaken the Police Associationposition. The Police Association supportedthe Labor Government, the Government thatrequired the Chief Commissioner to re-applyfor his position. Blamey never forgot norforgave and as a result executive memberswere summarily transferred to Siberiastations in the Mildura district. The PoliceAssociation was taken out of business as aneffective representative body for severaldecades.

In keeping with his personal values,Blamey used the police to crush theunemployed and other demonstrators duringthe depression years. In one notorious incidentin 1928, police protecting strikebreakers usedtheir firearms against a violent group ofstevedores, wounding four including oneseriously. Policing was difficult duringBlamey’s time – even the police took pay cuts.

On the positive side, Chief CommissionerBlamey was an exceptional leader of men and

SIR THOMAS BLAMEY: CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF THE VICTORIA POLICE 17

able to persuade them to follow his directionwhich was fearlessly held. Among his manyachievements were:• Established the criminal records office and

increased the usage of fingerprints andphotographs.

• Increased the number and duties ofpolicewomen.

• Sent two members to Europe to study crimeinvestigation.

• Formed a bicycle patrol section.• Formed a traffic control group of 60 men

equipped with motorcycles.• Extended the effectiveness of police

training, increased the recruit course fromone to three months and introduced a 12-month probationary period at itscompletion.

• Instrumental in having the Police TrainingDepot in St Kilda Road appointed as a StateSchool (number 4443), with full-timeeducation department teachers. (That sitehas been occupied by the Victorian Collegeof the Arts since 1973.)

• Improved accessibility to the CIB for allmembers.

• Upgraded the police hospital and RussellStreet gymnasium.

• Established a police institute and policeprovident fund.

• Tried to change the police promotions fromseniority to merit.

• Enhanced the recording of ownershipdetails at the Motor Registration Branch. Most of these achievements have continued

to operate to this day or lasted many decadesafter Blamey’s resignation. Fingerprints andtheir classification have been a major crimeinvestigation tool for many years. Blamey’semphasis on photographs was also particularlyfar-sighted.

It is a lot easier than in Blamey’s time foroverseas visits and inspections. In fact VictoriaPolice has become a centre of excellence in anumber of fields, which is attracting anincreasing number of professional visitors. As

did Blamey, our belief is that the Force and thecommunity benefit from operational police –often in the earliest stages of their careers butalways highly motivated – travellingnationally and internationally.

Bicycle patrols have been developed andexpanded to provide an urban service. I amsure he would have been impressed. Likewise,he was one of the first to recognise theimportance of the motor car in carrying outpolice duties and in road safety. His was thefirst significant Traffic Operations Group. Ifcomputers had been around I have no doubtBlamey would have introduced “red light” and“speed cameras”.

Blamey’s early years as a teacher meantthat he was horrified with the poor reading andwriting skills of his Force, and with thestandard of training provided to police recruits– a month of basic law and drill. Training wasradically overhauled and members were placedon probation for 12 months.

Blamey’s efforts are recognised as an earlybase upon which recruit training was launched.He was the first to use trained teachers and toprovide a general education to Victoria Policerecruits. The basic course still remains;however, the probationary period has beenextended to two years. And further, anymember inducted after 1 July 1997 will berequired to successfully complete the Diplomaof Police Studies conducted by DeakinUniversity, as a prerequisite for confirmation ofappointment as constable.

In relation to the CIB, he increased thestrength, and developed selection processeswhich could withstand criticism. Severalhundred men applied and the best of thesewere appointed. A very similar approachremains today.

Blamey was concerned with the welfare ofmembers. The police hospital was inadequatewith only one part-time nurse available.Blamey increased the number of nurses andappointed medicos who provided a highlyprofessional medical service. That foundation


took the police hospital into the 1990s when itwas discontinued in that form for unrelatedreasons.

Blamey developed the Police Institute toprovide quality goods and services to police atreasonable costs. I can clearly recall the late1960s with the barbers giving short back andsides at the Police Institute under theauditorium at Russell Street. The Institute waspart of the Russell Street culture until the early1980s.

In July 1927, Blamey established the PoliceProvident Fund to provide finance to membersoverwhelmed with debt through factorsbeyond their control such as family illness. TheCommonwealth Bank made an initial donation.A philanthropist, J. Alston Wallace, also madean anonymous donation leading to pressurefrom the press and the government of the dayto expose the fund. Wallace’s identity had tobe revealed and both he and Blamey were thefocus of media attention. Blamey stood firmand refused to return the gift.

The Provident Fund continues and hasbeen used on many occasions over the past 71years for the purposes for which Blameyconsidered it so necessary. It recentlypurchased two units in Carlton toaccommodate members and their families inwelfare emergencies. I think Mr Wallace andSir Thomas would be smiling.

As with many before him and since, theChief Commissioner could see the very obviousdeficiencies of a seniority-based promotionand transfer system. His attempt to modify thiswas one of the lengthiest and casualty-strewnencounters both with the Police Associationand the members. As always the difficulty wasin trying to develop a scheme which couldfairly and objectively assess members forpositions and for promotion. Blamey was nomore successful than others and there wasmuch heat generated in the process.

The increasing numbers of motor cars hadled to the establishment of the MotorRegistration Branch which was part of

Blamey’s domain. He was instrumental indeveloping ownership certificates which wereparticularly useful in the increasinglychallenging realm of car theft.

Blamey acted against police leakinginformation, especially detectives who wereoften commended at the expense of theircolleagues. In short, he was before his time inrecognising the damage that can arise from themisuse of media power. However, he alsosuffered from the close relationships whichsome police develop with the media because oftheir duties. The newspaper editors had longmemories. After ten years of antagonism, theymust have delighted in the hurdle whichBlamey ultimately created for himself.

On 22 May 1936, Superintendent JohnO’Connell Brophy, the recently-appointed headof the CIB, suffered three gunshot woundswhile in a chauffeur-driven car with twowomen in Royal Park. Initial reports from theChief Commissioner’s Office were that Brophyhad accidentally shot himself. A sceptical presswas then told that Brophy had been shot bybandits after going to the park to meet aninformer – there was no mention of thewomen.

As time went on and different officialexplanations emerged, Blamey rapidly dughimself into a hole of mammoth proportions.The newspapers were as one in calling forblood. The Government required Labor supportto govern and hence they appointed a RoyalCommission to investigate this matter. Blameywas less than truthful with his evidence,supporting Brophy when it was clear toeveryone that deception was involved.

Within a week of the Royal Commissionreport, Blamey was forced reluctantly to resign.Blamey’s position was not helped by acontemporaneous claim from the Chief Justiceof the Victorian Supreme Court denouncingimproper police investigatory methods,especially in the interviewing of suspects.

In 1936, when he resigned, Victoria Policecomprised 2281 policemen and 6 police-

SIR THOMAS BLAMEY: CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF THE VICTORIA POLICE 19

women. Today that number is 9,600 swornmembers including more than 1,400policewomen.

In conclusion, it is of value to speculatehow someone of Blamey’s personality andstyle would survive as we approach the 21stcentury. It would not be unkind to say that theyears of the total autocrat have well and trulypassed. He was the last such ChiefCommissioner. Policing is a very complexprofession and a variety of ideas andapproaches have to be considered. The Forceconsists of highly motivated and skilful staffboth sworn and unsworn. All must bepositively encouraged to do their best inserving the community.

A more formidable obstacle to Blameywould be the various tribunals and pressuregroups which must be handled diplomatically.I am sure Blamey’s first day in office wouldhave generated a swag of applications to theEqual Opportunity Commission or industrialtribunals. His first week would have provided afertile field of applications under the Freedomof Information Act. His first year would haveattracted a bevy of Auditor-Generalexaminations.

The Chief Commissioner’s summarytransfers of Association executive members,while expedient at the time, led a Laborgovernment under John Cain (senior) in 1946to legislate for protection for members whichadversely affected the ability of ChiefCommissioners properly to administer anddiscipline the Force for nearly four decades.While this has now been changed, theAssociation no doubt yearns for the timeswhen it held the whip hand. On the other handas we have seen in recent times, theAssociation is required to represent members inan increasingly difficult industrial environmentwhich I am sure Blamey would not haveenvisaged.

As far as the media is concerned, Blameywould feel under even more threat. While thenumber of daily newspapers have beenreduced from four to two, the ChiefCommissioner and the Force face theunrelenting scrutiny of the electronic mediaincluding talk-back radio which exposes policeaction to immediate public scrutiny andcomment. I wonder how Blamey would havehandled this constant pressure?

There is still a widespread expectation thatthe Chief Commissioner must be cleaner thanclean in his private and public life. Come tothink of it, there is no private life during theperiod in which one is privileged to hold theoffice.

It is difficult to get an appropriate feelabout the late 1920s and early 1930s. It was atime of high unemployment, when police payand conditions were poor compared with otherwork. For example, police were only entitled toone day off per month; in 1946 it wasincreased to one per week. It was not until1948 that police were granted Long ServiceLeave and a 40-hour working week with twodays off every week. During the 1920s and 30sthe connection between politicians and theChief Commissioner seemed more direct.It is therefore improper to judge ChiefCommissioner Thomas Blamey’s contributionby the standards of the 1990s.

Commentators at the time felt that SirThomas Blamey did not want to resign but feltas Chief Commissioner for life he shouldbrazen it out. No doubt that would have madehim unsuitable to achieve high military honourwhich in another life was to cover him andAustralia with glory.

His subsequent brilliant career asAustralia’s senior soldier capped off aremarkable commitment to two demandingprofessions – the military and policing. FieldMarshal Thomas Blamey left his mark on both.

Neil Comrie was the Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police from January 1993 until March 2001.

Governor-General Sir William Deane presenting the Army Banner, a gift from the Nation to the Australian Armyon its Centenary. Photograph: Sgt. W. Guthrie

21

The national debate on the future cons-titutional shape of our country, whetheras a continuing constitutional monarchy oras a republic, leads me to speak to you onthe subject “Understanding the Office of theGovernor-General of Australia” not to arguea case on one side or another, but so thatyou may have some picture of that elementin our polity, at least as perceived by onewho has occupied the Office: I was the 19thand the sixth Australian born and residentGovernor-General from 1977-1982. It maybe useful to have some appreciation andunderstanding of the Office as it hasevolved over the near-century of theCommonwealth’s existence.

First, because of the Institution’s specificinterests in defence, let me say something ofthe military aspect of the role of the Governor-General. Section 68 of the CommonwealthConstitution provides that “the Command inChief of the naval and military forces of theCommonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative”. Mysuccessor in the office, Sir Ninian Stephen,explored the meaning of that provision whenhe spoke at a graduation ceremony at the JointServices Staff College some years ago. On theface of it, he said, the Governor-General has“all the panache of a Boulanger, a general on awhite horse, at the head of his armies withstandard unfurled”. Neither my successor nor Isaw himself in such a description of thecommand-in-chief. Sir Ninian’s research ledhim to consider a variety of views ranging allthe way from the claim that as Commander-in-Chief, the Governor-General was “no morethan a glorified patron”of the armed forces, to

one which rather dramatically saw him as onewho “as the ultimate possessor of thecommand function waits, finger on the button,for the report of the Senior Service officer”– orsomething like that. Sir Ninian concluded thatwith the evolution of institutions of responsiblegovernment, it was clear that a governor wasnot intended to have substantive powers ofcommand. The debates in the Australianconstitutional conventions of the 1890s inwhich the Commonwealth Constitution wasdebated and drafted show, pretty clearly, thatthe title of the Governor-General asCommander-in-Chief was intended to confertitular and not substantive command-in-chief.At the same time the role was seen as givingexpression to a special and distinctiverelationship between the Governor-Generaland the armed forces of the Commonwealth. InSir Ninian Stephen’s words it is:

a close relationship of sentiment, basedneither upon control nor command butwhich in our democratic society expresseson the one hand the nation’s pride in andrespect for its armed forces and on theother, the willing subordination of themembers of those forces to the civil power.That appears to me to express it very well. I

have many recollections of the strength andwarmth of feeling in the armed forces for theGovernor-General as Commander-in-Chief andI have many special and distinctive memoriesof it. Over the years in office there were visitsto Service institutions for a wide variety ofpurposes, and, from time to time, to take partin military exercises. My wife has a favouritepicture of me in a Leopard tank, smilinghugely and looking like a cat given unlimited

Understanding the Office of theGovernor-General of Australia

By The Right Honourable Sir Zelman Cowen, AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC, DCL

Address to the Royal United Service Institution of Victoria, 24 June 1993


cream, and somewhere among my possessionsI have a licence to operate such a tank. I doubtwhether it has any validity, and I am veryunlikely to put it to the test, but I was pleasedto receive it.

As I look back over the record of speechesand travels, there were many Serviceoccasions. There were the graduationceremonies of the various Service colleges andother military courses, there were presentationsof colours, banners and guidons, there wereawards for Service competitions like the Dukeof Gloucester’s Cup, there were attendances atService dinners and functions, as well as atvarious R.S.L. and other like occasions. It wasreally quite impressive to look back at and totally the number of speeches and functionswhich had a Service connection.

Apart from such activities and ceremonies,there were other links with the Services. In thehousehold of the Governor-General there areserving military officers: the Comptroller of theHousehold and the aides. The comptrollers inmy time were successively Army and Navyofficers of lieutenant colonel and commanderrank. The aides were of the rank of captain orequivalent, and there was one from each of thethree Services, each serving for a year with astaggered succession. They were all careerofficers, and I took the view, with which I hopethe Chiefs of Staff concurred, that these weresignificant appointments worthy of specialattention in that they gave the selected man(and it happened that in my time they were allmen) a view of the world and a distinctivesocial and educational experience which stoodhim in good stead when he returned to regularService duties, and made his way up theService ladder. The experience would serve himwell if he were likely to progress to the higherService levels. Of course it cannot be easy toidentify the “flyer” so early in a Service career,but so far as it was possible, I hope that thepost of aide to a Governor-General was seen asvaluable in this educational-social experiencerole. I do not know whether it was possible to

achieve what I hoped for, but among the aideswere men of diverse abilities who, afteraccustoming themselves to an unfamiliar andvery demanding role, derived significantbenefit, experience and even enjoyment fromthe job.

All of this tells a story of the links of theGovernor-General with the military side. Ibelieve that the association was valued by theServices who, as Sir Ninian Stephen put it,recognised the “quite special relationship thatexists between the Governor-General and thearmed forces of the Commonwealth”.

In my time, I went to sea in at least one ofalmost everything the Navy had; in doing so Ihad a day and a submerged lunch in anOBERON-class submarine. I was carried aboutthe country daily in the aircraft of the RAAF’sNo 34 Squadron. I cannot say that I flew inone of everything the RAAF had, but I fulfilledmy ambition to fly in a Canberra, one of themost beautiful aircraft to grace the skies. I havesaid something already about my manyengagements with the Army.

At another level, I had many interestingmeetings and talks with visiting senior militaryofficers. The Governor-General receives manycallers and this provides opportunity forsubstantial discussion, and some of the mostsearching and stimulating discussions werewith senior servicemen. The meeting whichremains most lasting in my memory was withMarshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Cameronwho was then Chief of the British DefenceStaff. I remember another discussion aboutterrorism with General Meyer, a US ArmyChief. There were many of these meetings andwhat remains vivid in memory is the many-sidedness of the minds of these officers whoexercised high command functions.

Let me now speak more generally of theOffice of Governor-General. The AustralianConstitution provided that the Queen should beHead of State. She was to be represented in theCommonwealth by a Governor-General whoperformed Head of State functions as her

UNDERSTANDING THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF AUSTRALIA 23

representative and in accordance with theConstitution. Over the nine decades of thiscentury both offices, the monarchy and theGovernor-Generalship, have undergonesignificant change. In 1901 Australia wasinternally self-governing, but was still in manyrespects of colonial status, acknowledgingallegiance to a monarch who was Queen of theentire Empire. Early in the century Australia incompany with a small number ofconstitutionally advanced colonies achievedspecial status as a self-governing dominion.This was reinforced by her participation in theFirst World War, and in the inter war years thestatus of Australia and her sister dominionswas redefined at a great Imperial Conference in1926 to emphasise a relationship of equalitywith one another and with the UnitedKingdom. The essential link in this newstructure was seen as common allegiance tothe Crown. Following the end of the SecondWorld War major changes took place withinthe diminishing empire and the expandingCommonwealth of Nations particularly in thepassage to independence of former colonies ledby India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Theirs was adifferent colonial history; to Indiaindependence was bound up with republicanstatus. So in 1949 the question was posedwhether India might be a member of theCommonwealth as a republic, and the answergiven at a meeting of Prime Ministers ofCommonwealth countries in that year was thatshe might do so. So it was that as othercolonies came to independence they opted in amajority of cases, either at that time or later,for republican status. So it is that in thecontemporary Commonwealth, Australia is oneof a substantial minority among some states inacknowledging the Queen as Head of State.

Further it was agreed that individualCommonwealth states retaining the monarchymight redefine the style and titles of themonarch. Australia did so in 1953 and 1973;the Queen is monarch by separate and distincttitles in all those states in which she is

constitutionally Head of State. In examiningthese arrangements, it can be said that there isspecial significance in the Queen’s role asQueen of the United Kingdom; there as part ofa long history she performs her Head of Staterole in person. It is impractical therefore for theQueen to undertake more than an occasionalvisit to each of the other states of which she ishead. To assure the adequate discharge of herconstitutional and ceremonial duties in thesestates she must have a representativepermanently in place to perform those duties.Hence the role of the Governor-Generalassumes importance.

Now that role has changed over the courseof this century. To take our case, the Governor-General was appointed by the monarch at thebeginning on the advice of the Government;he came from the United Kingdom andreturned to it at the conclusion of his term. Hesaw his responsibilities as twofold: in oneaspect performing constitutional duties onbehalf of the Queen; in another as the protectorof British and imperial interests, acting in thisaspect on behalf of the British Government.

Over time, there was increasing pressurefrom Australian governments for a voice in thechoice of a Governor-General and after the endof the First World War there were pressures toredefine the Governor-Generalship inparticular aspects. So in 1926 it was agreed atthe Imperial Conference that Governor-Generals should stand in relation to theirgovernments in the same relationship as didthe monarch in relation to the United KingdomGovernment. The clear point was that theGovernor-General should not act at all asrepresentative of the British Government; itsinterests should henceforth be the concernof a diplomatic agent, styled the HighCommissioner for the United Kingdom.

As it happened it was an Australianinitiative which established the rule for thechoice and nomination of the Governor-General. In 1930, on the retirement of a(British) Governor-General, the Australian


Government resolved to recommend anAustralian-born and resident citizen, Sir IsaacIsaacs to the King, George V, to be Governor-General. Isaacs was at the time Chief Justice ofthe High Court of Australia; he was the son ofpoor immigrants and had had a brilliant careerin the law and politics. The King was resistantto the appointment of a local man, and thestanding of the Australian (as contrasted withthe British) Government to make therecommendation was challenged. The issuewas highly controversial in London andAustralia, but the Australian Prime Minister,J.H. Scullin, stood his ground and the Kingmade the appointment, albeit reluctantly. Theentitlement of an Australian (or otherCommonwealth) Government to recommendthe appointment of a Governor-General to theKing was affirmed by an Imperial Conferencein 1930. So it was that the modern Governor-Generalship was put in place. It did not followthat all Australian Governor-Generals musthenceforth be Australian citizens, and it wasnot until the mid 1960s, with the appointmentof Lord Casey, that a continuing practice ofnominating Australian citizens was adopted. Iwas the 19th Governor-General; I wasappointed in 1977 in succession to Sir JohnKerr whose action in November 1975 indismissing the Whitlam Government provokeda constitutional crisis and brought a visibilityto the Office of Governor-General which it hadnever before had to any comparable extent. Iwas appointed on the recommendation of thePrime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. Adistinguished Australian historian has writtenthat in practical terms Australia is a “crownedrepublic”, since in practice all the significantpowers and functions of the Queen areexercised by an Australian Governor-Generalwhose sources of appointment and authority isin fact Australian. Indeed the critical functionsare discharged by him: this was illustrated bywhat was done in 1975 in respect of thedismissal of Mr Whitlam. Sir John Kerr in hisbook Matters for Judgement made the point

that the action was his; that he did not consultwith or inform the Queen, though he advisedher immediately after he had acted. So hewrote:

I did not tell the Queen in advance that Iintended to exercise these powers onNovember 11. I did not ask her approval.The decisions I took were without theQueen’s advance knowledge. The reason forthis was that I believed, if dismissal actionwas to be taken, that it could be taken onlyby me and that it must be done on my soleresponsibility. My view was that to informHer Majesty in advance of what I intendedto do and when would be to risk involvingher in an Australian political andconstitutional crisis in relation to which shehad no legal powers and I must not takesuch a risk.The power which Sir John Kerr exercised is

styled a “reserve” power; that is to say a powerexercised by the Governor-General in hisdiscretion and not on the advice of his PrimeMinister. Such powers are comparatively rare,and in this case bitterly contested. There are afew: the power to choose a Prime Minister inthose circumstances in which theconfigurations of party do not make the choiceinevitable, and the power to refuse a PrimeMinister’s advice to dissolve the parliament.The definition of the reserve power has been amatter of debate; it was said that Sir JohnKerr’s exercise of the power of dismissal gave afillip to the republican cause. The change to arepublic would not, of itself, resolve the issue,however. With a president in place as Head ofState, the problem which gave rise to theexercise of reserve powers would still remainand have to be faced. In Sir John Kerr’s case,the problem in fact arose out of therelationships between the two Houses ofParliament.

The events of November 1975 havefocussed attention on the exercise ofconstitutional and political power by aGovernor-General; the critics of its exercise in

UNDERSTANDING THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF AUSTRALIA 25

defining the acceptable role of a Governor-General frame it in terms that it should be“purely ceremonial and divorced from theexercise of real political power”, that he has (orshould have) no real powers “but to open fairs,cut ribbons and the like”. The language of suchpeople is that of ceremony and it distractsattention from the fact that by a dueattendance of business of his office, by theexercise of functions and influence withinacceptable limits, a Governor-General can, inappropriate cases, exercise an effectiveinfluence on the processes of Government. Inthe Australian context, my own experience ofthe workings of the Federal Executive Councilillustrates this. In the Council, week by week,the Governor-General presides, advised andattended by ministers. A great deal ofgovernmental business was done, including themaking of regulations, orders, proclamationsand a wide range of appointments as well asother diverse governmental business whichwas required to be overseen and approvedthere. Sir Paul Hasluck who had wideexperience of the work of the ExecutiveCouncil from two sides – as a minister as wellas a Governor-General – has written in somedetail about its work, and much of hisexperience, which is certainly extensive,corresponds with my own. The Governor-General can and I believe does play a usefulrole in requiring clear and ample explanationfor what is proposed. In my case, having seenand studied the papers I would ask questions ofofficers in advance of Council meetings tosatisfy myself that I understood what wasbeing done and that it was being doneregularly. I would raise questions with theattending ministers in the Council so that theycould take into account the doubts, questionsand concerns of the Governor-General beforethey formally tendered advice to him. TheGovernor-General’s experience in questioningproposed actions and procedures and in raisingpoints, as that experience grew, was intendedand I think was calculated to serve the interests

of regularity which in the press of big, busyand complex government, may not always beassured. As I said in a speech to the NationalPress Club in Canberra shortly before I left theoffice in July 1982, such activity and conducton the part of the Governor-General allow himto play a useful and, it may be, an importantrole in government which is consistent with ameticulous respect for the principle that theGovernor-General acts on the advice ofministers. A vigilant and inquiring Governor-General comes to be recognised as such in thedepartments which have the responsibility forpreparing and conducting substantialgovernment business. This is specially true inthe busy work of the Executive Council; it istrue also of other areas of business in whichthe Governor-General plays a part. Approval ofa document or of a course of action which fallswithin his purview is not to be regardedas a mindless, unenquiring, mechanicalendorsement.

Further let me say that the description ofthe ceremonial role of the Governor-General as“chief ribbon bestower and chief ribbon cutter”tends to diminish the significance and often toobscure the character of what is done in thisdemanding area of the Governor-General’sactivity. Questions are sometimes raised as towhether an appointee is “too well qualified”, asif to say that the office calls for no substantialqualities of mind. Once again, my experiencecorresponds with that of Sir Paul Hasluck.What was asked of me in a wide range ofactivities made a full call upon my physicaland intellectual capacities. In my speech at thePress Club I said that it appeared to me tocharacterise the Office of Governor-General astrivial and empty. As with the monarchy so toowith the Governor-General – much time andenergy and care go into the performance of awide range of non-constitutional, non-politicaland in this sense ceremonial duties andactivities. This is what the famous 19th centurywriter, Walter Bagehot, spoke of as the“dignified” role of the monarch. If observers


are pleased to call this “ribbon bestowing” and“ribbon cutting”, let it be recognised that thebestowing of ribbons is a recognition ofsignificant and diverse community service byindividuals and that is no poor thing, while themany ceremonies and openings (the ribboncutting) are associated with events in the life ofthe nation from the broadly national to thelocal. They take the Governor-General to manyplaces in a vast nation continent; they leadhim in speech to an interpretation andidentification of many significant activities,issues and occasions. The openings, themeetings in which the Governors-Generalparticipated were not infrequently those ofnational and international bodies, ofprofessions, industries, of specialists, ofacademic bodies, of learned societies.

From the earliest days of theCommonwealth’s existence the Governors-General have recognised the importance oftravelling through the nation and have beenclear about the reasons. Lord Hopetoun, thefirst Governor-General, saw this as providing aneeded national focus in the early days ofAustralian federation. In an early speech hepromised to demonstrate “to the many thatthey are living under one central government”.Right up to the present day his successors havefollowed this course and for the same reasons.At an earlier time it was done, often arduously,by slower means of transport. In our day, jetaircraft annihilate distance. While this mayrelieve the rigour, it makes possible an ever-expanding opportunity for travel all over thecountry.

Much time and energy go into thedischarge and into the preparation for thedischarge of such duties and I believe that it isthe case that the Governor-General, like the

monarch, makes his major contributionthrough the continuing and, I hope I may say,the committed performance of these duties. Ibelieve that through this work, the Governor-General offers encouragement and recognitionto Australians many of whom may not be verypowerful or visible in the course of daily life,and to the efforts of individuals and groupswho work constructively to improve life in thenation and community. Sir Paul Hasluck hassaid that Australians both expect andappreciate statements by a Governor-Generalon matters of current concern at a leveldifferent from that of party politicalcontroversy, and I shaped what I said in accordwith that. Knowledge, experience and capacitywere constantly tested and called upon inresponding to what was asked and expected ofme. As well I saw, as did Hopetoun in thebeginning, that a major role was performed bythe Governor-General in the discharge of alarge number of functions all over Australia.The responses were often quite remarkable andwere certainly moving. It cannot easily bebetter put than in Hasluck’s words, that theOffice of Governor-General is the highestsingle expression in the AustralianGovernmental structure of the idea thatAustralians of all parties and walks of lifebelong to the same nation. Recognition of thisplaces heavy burdens and responsibilities onthe Australian who holds the office.

In the discussion of the republic, I haveoften wondered what I – an Australian andAustralian nominated Governor-General –would have done which would have beensignificantly different had I been aconstitutional president of an Australianrepublic. Not much, I think, in substance.

Sir Zelman Cowen was Governor-General of Australia from 1977 to 1982.

27

In the euphoria following the successfulmounting of the XXVII Olympiad,Australians would do well to ponder a fewwords from the speech prepared by Sir ThomasBlamey in the days before he was to receive hisField Marshal’s baton from the Governor-General:

A few words on our future. The spirit andhard work of our pioneers made it possiblefor us to enjoy life in our Australia, andtheir young, generous, and bravedescendants volunteered twice in thiscentury to serve their country in its need.Our nation’s future is, unfortunately, notyet secured, and its sons must consent toaccept whatever responsibilities fall onthem, and draw strength for their dischargefrom the traditions of their predecessors.Blamey was too ill to deliver this speech,

but it was not an idle thought. According toJohn Hetherington, he had spoken widelyabout our nation’s future to many communitygroups, giving a wider expression through anarticle in the Melbourne Herald on 4 June1947. In it he stated his ideas about preparinga nation for an uncertain future.

No system of military defence can beconsidered adequate under modernconditions which does not lay thefoundations for the preparation, not only ofthe armed forces but of the whole nation.In such a scheme every class of thecommunity must be considered and the partthey must play – first, in the armed forceswhich will take the first shock of war;second, in the organisation of the nation tosupply those armed forces; and, third, inthe organisation of the whole community to

ensure the maintenance and welfare of thecountry.It is not essential at this stage that a hugeproportion of the national income should bediverted to the purpose. But it is essential,if we are to be realistic at all in the matter,that the foundations should be laid and theessential framework of the machinery beprovided.Unless this conception is accepted andapplied, the money expended will be largelywasted, and the nation will be no moreprepared to meet the position than it was in1939.Last year, 2000, the Australian Government

issued a public discussion paper, DefenceReview 2000 – Our Future Defence Force. It isobvious that the Government considersdefence begins and ends with the armed forcesand sought answers to the following questions:• What do we want our armed forces to be

able to do?• Where do we want our armed forces to be

able to operate?• What is the best way to structure the

Defence Force?• What is the best way to spend the Defence

budget?Compare this restricted outlook to that of

our great wartime Commander-in-Chief, whospoke of the need to prepare not just the armedforces but of the whole nation; the need toplan not just for the fighting but for the supplyof the armed forces and for the maintenanceand welfare of the community. Furthermore, ifwe were not to waste money, the essentialframework of the machinery to conduct a warmust be in place.

Blamey and National SecurityBy Brigadier P.J. Greville, CBE, BE

A revised paper based on an address to the United Service Institute of Queensland, Brisbane,15 May 1996.


Defence under Modern ConditionsSince Napoleon, war has been conducted in

four dimensions, which can be defined asoperational power, logistic capability,technology and social power. No successfulstrategies for the long-term security ofAustralia can be formulated without takinginto account all four of them.

All four will be looked at, but spaceprevents the full spectrum to be covered. Underoperational power, we will look briefly at thedirection of the armed forces and thelegislative environment in which they mayhave to operate. Under logistic capability wewill examine our potential for armsproduction. We will examine briefly ourtechnological base and finally the Australiancommunity.

Operational PowerBlamey’s appointment as Commander-in-

Chief was unceremoniously terminated inNovember 1945 by Prime Minister Chifley.However, in re-establishing the Military Board,the Minister for the Army, Frank Forde, soughtBlamey’s advice. Blamey responded with abalanced proposal for the direction of thearmed forces in peace, which centred about theneed for the minister to preside over an ArmyCouncil. This council was to consist of theminister as President, the Chief of the GeneralStaff as Deputy President, the Commanders ofEastern and Southern Commands (one ofwhom was to be a member of the CitizenMilitary Forces) and the Secretary, Departmentof Army.

There was much merit in Blamey’sproposal, particularly his insistence that theminister preside over the council, which wastasked with the preparation of the Army forwar. He believed that the pre-war MilitaryBoard had failed abysmally in preparing theAustralian Army for the 1939-45 war. Hisadvice was not accepted; however Forde didestablish two types of Military Board meetings,namely general and ordinary meetings. A

general meeting was one presided over by theminister, to be held at least every two months,at which the more important policy andadministrative aspects would be consideredand resolved. Ordinary meetings would bepresided over by the Chief of the General Staffand deal with the details of Armyadministration. During the first meeting of theMilitary Board after its restitution, partly inanswer to Blamey’s concerns, Forde declaredthat:

Peace-time for an army department canhave only one meaning – preparation time,planning for war. If the whole armyadministration, both civil and military, canbecome indoctrinated with the idea then Ithink the most dangerous aspects ofunpreparedness will be avoided. If the armyadministration, both civil and military,concentrate on appreciating what it will becalled upon to do in war, visualising itsrequirements in war and planningaccordingly, then I think that whatever maybe the condition of our materialpreparations, vital time will be savedbecause the departmental outlook and planswill be tuned to war needs. This is a far cry from the ideas behind the

reorganisation of the Defence departments of1974, which forms the basis for theexisting organisation. The architect of thatreorganisation, Sir Arthur Tange, in justifyinghis proposals, stated:

I am talking about peacetime and I amtalking about advice and accountability tothe government in peacetime. There is ofcourse some tendency, and I imagine it isnatural, to assume that at all times weshould be organised for total war and intotal war the organisation I am talkingabout, and the place that I am talking aboutof civilians, would be substantially changed,but one is bound to say “for how manyyears in the past 73 has Australia beeninvolved in total war?”

BLAMEY AND NATIONAL SECURITY 29

If Australia had not been involved in totalwar since 1945, the Australian Army hadtroops on active service for almost every yearbetween 1945 and 1972. Blamey would haveobjected in no uncertain terms. The higherdefence machinery since 1974 has been fatallyflawed and the constant fiddling with it overthe subsequent 27 years has done little toclarify the command and administrativestructure.

According to section 30 of the Defence Act,“the Defence Force consists of three arms,namely the Naval, Military and Air Forces ofthe Commonwealth”. The Defence Departmentis responsible for the administration of theDefence Force. The mobilisation of a nation forwar is the responsibility of the Government,involving the coordination of military,strategic, economic, financial, external andinternal affairs. In war, Cabinet is responsiblefor the overall prosecution of the war, which iswhy in the 1939-45 war, Churchill as PrimeMinister became the Minister for War and why,in Australia, Prime Minister Curtin assumedthe role of Minister for Defence. In peace, theGovernment, not the Department of Defencenor the Defence Force, is responsible for theformulation of Defence policy.

Blamey would doubt that either theGovernment or the Department of Defence isorganised efficiently to play their part in theevolution of Defence policy. The recentpassage of legislation to enable the DefenceForce to operate in certain circumstances onthe mainland of Australia, is a prime exampleof how slothful government can be in carryingout its part. In 1925, my father, a corporal ofthe Queenscliff garrison, was deployed toprotect Commonwealth property in Melbourneduring the police strike. The moral dilemmafacing the soldier in military aid to the civilpower in a federation such as Australia hasbeen known since then. When Malcolm Frasercalled out the military to secure a route fromSydney to Bowral in 1978 there was no legalframework in which the soldiers could operate.

During the 1980-90s the ADF carried outnumerous exercises in the northern regions ofAustralia against small bands of “enemy” whowere carrying out raids against isolatedcommunities and vital assets. The Army hadno legal framework to enable it to employroadblocks, search property, arrest suspiciouspersons and carry out other aspects of suchoperations. It took an improbable terroristthreat to the Olympic Games to jolt theGovernment into providing legislation.Regrettably the public are none the wiser aboutthe need for such legislation. At no time didthe Government take the trouble properly toexplain its legislation or the need for it. For allits pretensions, the media coverage was woeful.

There is much more legislation needed tocover a number of situations that could occurin Australia. Each State and the NorthernTerritory has quite different emergencylegislation, leaving a legal minefield for policeforces and the ADF to operate within. A fewlawyers are needed to provide a basic systemand then political will at state and Federal levelto produce legislation. It is the least theGovernment can do.

Logistic CapabilityDuring the 1939-45 war, from a very weak

industrial base, Australia manufactured manyitems of war required by our Army and theforces of the USA. After the war, successivegovernments supported the expansion of theindustrial base and in some respects thosegains are still extant. More recently, the thrustfor “free trade” and a global economy has seenmuch of our light manufacturing industrydestroyed. A case can be made for preservingvital parts of it.

Blamey was interested in the practical sideof military input into our armaments industry.In a letter to the Minister for the Army on 22September 1944, he urged the selection ofsuitably qualified Army officers to attend theMilitary College of Science in the UnitedKingdom. He wrote:


The proper development of equipment foruse under active service conditions requiresa considerable number of specialistpersonnel within the Army. Apart fromthose directly needed in actual manufacture,there is a need for officers who have bothexperience in the use of the equipmentconcerned, and have adequate scientific ortechnical knowledge to be able to deal withthe research, design and inspection aspectsof the warlike stores required for the Armyand to improve the link with productionauthorities. The Military College of Sciencein the UK conducts courses for the trainingof officers for this special purpose, that isthe study of the problems relating to design,development, manufacture and inspectionof equipment.Blamey urged that two officers be selected

annually to attend the Military College ofScience. Forde accepted this proposal and the

Army has continued the practice until recently,when it created its own courses. Graduatesfrom that establishment staff our presentequipment development staff and inspectionservice, or quality assurance service as it isnow called.

Blamey, as C-in-C, supervised theestablishment of lines of communications fromsouth-eastern Australia to the north. We hadnever had this responsibility before; theprocess was slow, painful, manpower intensiveand involved many processes and skillspreviously not part of the Army’s scope. Heand his successors were determined to retainthat capability. As part of the “rationalisation”processes, to which the Army has beensubjected repeatedly for over a quarter of acentury, this capability has been lost ordissipated. Events in East Timor exposed a gapin our logistic capability; perhaps a properexamination will overcome these shortfalls.

The Opening of the John Curtin School of Medical Research (JCSMR) at the Australian National University.Among those in attendance were Robert Menzies and Howard Florey.

Photograph by kind permission of Photography JCSMR

BLAMEY AND NATIONAL SECURITY 31

TechnologyConcerned about the difficulties in treating

wounded and sick soldiers in New GuineaBlamey sought the advice of Howard Florey,the noted Australian pathologist who did muchto make penicillin and other antibioticsavailable to patients. With the agreement ofPrime Minister Curtin, he invited him toAustralia. Florey wrote to Blamey on his returnto the UK in January 1945, thanking him “forthe extraordinarily efficient and kindly way Iwas treated by all the Army under yourcommand”.

Before that, on 24 October 1944, Blameyhad written to the Prime Minister confirmingthe recommendations he had made in informaldiscussions with Curtin relating to Sir HowardFlorey. Blamey stressed that the importance ofcontemporary science both from a wartimeand reconstruction point of view was such inBritain and elsewhere, that Australia could nothope to attract the best men to work hereunless the facilities offered for work werebetter than in the old countries. He went on torecommend that a National University befounded with a National Medical ResearchInstitute. As he stated:

I am more and more impressed with thenecessity for putting a stop to the drainageof outstanding Australians to posts in othercountries. There will be very little future forAustralian science if the drainagecontinues, and it can be said withassurance that adequate provision for theemployment of Australians of world rank inAustralian laboratories would have theeffect of energising and enhancing thequality of Australian contributions in nearlyevery field of intellectual endeavour.John Hetherington claimed that the very

first letter on the ANU’s registry is the onefrom General Blamey to the Prime Minister.There is no doubt if he was with us today, theField Marshal would be urging our presentPrime Minister to heed the request of our ChiefScientist, Dr R.J. Batterham, to provide the

necessary funding to enable Australianresearch to be effective. A further brain drain isnot in our best interests for peace or war.

The PeopleAfter the fall of Singapore, Curtin

addressed the nation and stated:The organisation of a non-military peoplefor the purposes of complete war mustnecessarily effect a revolution in the lives ofthe people. A transformation so great asthat, which the government regards asimperative, is inevitably beset with manydifficulties, and must create manyproblems. It may be marked by some degreeof confusion.Blamey recognised this, as his Melbourne

Herald article demonstrated: “That every classof the community must be considered and thepart they must play.”

Since Blamey and Curtin, the population ofAustralia has undertaken great changes innumbers and ethnic profile. From apredominantly British population of aboutseven million in 1945, the population is nowclose to 19 million, made up of the mostdiverse pattern of peoples of any nation in theworld. Our society has absorbed these changespeacefully and generally with tolerance. Howwould it cope with war?

Writing in a different context, April Cartermakes the point:

The difficulties and dangers of racial,religious or class divisions do not howevernecessarily lead to the conclusion that onlya homogenous, religiously united andclassless society can conduct resistance.These barriers may be largely overcome by aunifying purpose arising from the struggleagainst a common evil, by nationalism, bymutual tolerance or by political unity andpolitical skill.The Aborigines are the element of

Australian society genuinely isolated andalienated. Aborigines who have served in thearmed services have performed well. There


have been few, if any reports aboutdiscrimination or prejudice in the Army –which means that if it did occur, it was rare.On the other hand, at the very first MilitaryBoard meeting after the 1939-45 war, the Chiefof the General Staff ordered an investigationinto reports that Aboriginal ex-servicemenwere being stripped of their savings includingtheir deferred pay by State and Territoryadministrations.

In 1965, two Army officers, Jol Langtryand Colin East, published an article in theArmy Journal, suggesting the formation of alargely Aboriginal-manned unit to guard ourvacant north. This imaginative but otherwiseunexceptional article caused a political storm.By 1981 the Army had formed Norforce, alargely Aboriginal-manned unit, designed topatrol our still largely unoccupied north. It isnow a prestige unit.

Shortly after the election of the HowardGovernment, the Army was invited to assistisolated Aboriginal communities with housingand services. This program has been verysuccessful, many communities receiving muchneeded facilities and in the process, many inthe communities have been trained in the skillsnecessary to maintain those facilities. Aboveall, both the communities and soldiers havegained mutual confidence and respect for eachother, the building bricks for “reconciliation”.

The present Government is correct ingiving priority to improving the health,education and economic prospects ofAborigines. But until Australian Aboriginesfind their individual and corporate place inAustralian society, we shall not be a cohesivenation. Until the Aborigines develop their fullpotential, the nation will be below its optimalstrength. The numerous outstanding

Aborigines in arts, politics, law and sport areliving proof of their innate talents. The widercommunity must ensure that those who fail toreach their potential do not fail from want ofopportunity or encouragement.

As a nation, we have difficulty inidentifying a likely enemy or a probable threat.No one can be certain about the future. In themeantime we should follow our mostdistinguished soldier’s advice and lay thefoundation for mobilising “every class in thecommunity”.

ConclusionBlamey was recognised by his admirers and

detractors alike for his strategic grasp and hisstaff abilities. In this short paper, attention hasbeen given to wider and less known aspects ofhis knowledge. Despite his onerous wartimeduties, he was not content to simply fight thebattle, but was looking to the future of hiscountry.

Blamey, the professional soldier, recognisedthe place of the citizen army. The regularDefence Force, particularly the Army, is but thevanguard of the national defence force.

Blamey, the soldier, emphasised the needfor the civil branches of government to be ablequickly to change to a war economy andmobilise the technical, supply, transportationand manpower resources for war.

Blamey took an active interest in the post-war immigration program knowing thatwe would no longer be a homogeneous,religiously united society. Today he would beworking for a nation whose citizens possess aunifying purpose, based on a good humoured,mellow nationalism, which can only benurtured through mutual tolerance.

Brigadier Greville’s last appointment was Commander 4th Field Force Group and 4th Military District, from 1977until 1980.

33

Iam not a military historian and have noqualifications to write about Blamey thesoldier or to make any assessment of him as amilitary commander. In this paper I will tryonly to make some contribution to anunderstanding of the conditions in whichBlamey worked during the last phase of hiscareer when he was Commander Allied LandForces in the South West Pacific Area (SWPA).I will draw on my research and writing as oneof the authors of the civil series of the OfficialHistory of Australia in the War of 1939-45,supplemented by knowledge gained inpersonal experience in wartime administration.

You will recall that early in the war, underthe Menzies Government, Blamey was chosenfor high command and, in sequence, wasappointed GOC 6th Division, Second AIF, GO

defence force journal...general geoff carter, brigadier paul yonge and lieutenant colonel len...

Documents