VETERANS - civilian service in Vietnam War - Applicant not a member of the Defence Force - continuous full-time service requirements not met - operational service requirements not met - compensation not payable - decision under review affirmed.

Defence Act 1903

1. In 1971, during the Vietnam War, the United States purchased trucks and trailers from Australian manufacturers for Cambodia. This was an urgent purchase. The Australian Government committed to provide technicians to ensure the proper use of the equipment. This was how Mr Ali found himself in Vietnam and Cambodia.
2. Mr Ali worked as a civilian diesel mechanic for International Harvester, which supplied the purchased equipment. Following a meeting with the Minister for Defence, of which no official record seems to exist, Mr Ali travelled to Vietnam and worked with 102 Field Workshop in Vung Tau from March 1971. In July 1972, Mr Ali returned to Australia and resumed his employment at International Harvester.
3. Mr Ali has received medallic recognition by the Australian Government for his service in Vietnam. Mr Ali is also held in high regard by the veterans' community. After years of declining health, Mr Ali has claimed a pension under the Veterans Entitlement Act 1986 (VEA).
4. A threshold issue in this matter is whether Mr Ali was a member of the Defence Force who rendered continuous full-time service in an operational area under section 6C of the VEA. Mr Ali does not meet this threshold.
5. Mr Ali was not enlisted in, or appointed to, the Australian Army within the meaning of section 19(2) of the Defence Act 1903. He has not completed service in the Defence Force within the meaning of Division 2, Part III of the Defence Act 1903, including continuous full-time service as either a member of Permanent Forces or the Reserves. Military service is not a civil contract under section 27 of the Defence Act 1903 and all other indices of military service are irrelevant for establishing whether Mr Ali was a soldier or a civilian.
6. Mr Ali was not a soldier. The best evidence before the Tribunal is that he was employed by the Department of Supply whilst in Vietnam and Cambodia. At some level he seems also to have maintained a relationship with International Harvester. Mr Ali was a civilian.
7. Given that Mr Ali has not served in the Defence Force, including on continuous full-time service, within the meaning of the Defence Act 1903, it is not reasonable for the Tribunal to find that Mr Ali has such service within the meaning of the section 5C(1) of the VEA. He was not a member of the Forces within the meaning of sections 68, 69 and 69A of the VEA. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Ali has met the operational service requirements of section 6C of the VEA.
8. As Mr Ali has not satisfied the operational service requirements of section 6C of the VEA, he has not rendered eligible war service within the meaning of section 7(1)(a). Section 5R of the VEA does not assist Mr Ali and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs of 15 April 2010 not to make a determination with respect to Mr Ali's employment in Vietnam.
9. It is immaterial if Mr Ali was attached to 102 Field Workshop, which was a submission that is central to Mr Ali's claim. Even if the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Ali was member of a unit of the Defence Force, he would still not have fulfilled the threshold continuous full-time service and operational service requirements.
10. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Ali is a veteran for the purposes of section 5C of the VEA. Compensation is not payable by the Respondent. The decision under review must therefore be affirmed. It remains open to Mr Ali to investigate if he has a claim as against the former Department of Supply or International Harvester.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.............................................................