I'm afraid I have to disagree with the condemnation of our National Service Scheme '64 to '72 contained in this thread - on the basis that, for better or for worse, the scheme was introduced to enable Aus to meet commitments, as determined by our legitimate government of the day, to support our Allies in an overseas theatre of war. Whether that war, or our participation in it, was justified, or not, is not the question, only whether Aus had good reason to support its Allies when called upon to do so. (And, just hollering "go for it, mate" doesn't actually cut the mustard in such instances.)

Given that Aus, and the world, owes a great debt of gratitude for the U.S. participation in WWII, and that, ever since then, the U.S. has remained our most important and most staunch Ally (most tellingly for our ongoing security ever since - given our relative geographical isolation from our real 'friends', and the relatively modest scope of our own ongoing defence capabilities), it can reasonably be argued that Aus has had no alternative but to support its Ally.

Although the U.S. has proven to be pretty paranoid ever since WWII (seeing 'Reds under the beds' all over the place, including per the now seen to be infamous 'Domino Theory'), Aus has continued to support this Ally where deemed appropriate by our government - viz Iraq and Afghanistan.

How would we now sit, in terms of our overall national security, had we chosen not to participate in any, or all, of those engagements? (And thereby having 'reneged' on what would reasonably be seen as a national obligation.) I suspect either rather poorly, defence-wise, or having had to greatly enhance our defence commitment and associated expenditure over the relevant period - with consequent impacts on other, and possibly more progressive aspects, of our national development programs, including Health, Education, Industry, and Welfare.

Hence: A friend in need is a friend indeed. (And, not just a 'fair weather' one.)

(Cont'd):
In hindsight, and in due course of time, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan engagements (and our involvement therein) may well be judged to have been gross errors of judgement. Be that as it may, this is a pretty tough world, and we are only one of the smaller fish therein, and small fish have need of staunch and reliable friends.

I grieve the loss of our fellows, in all conflicts, and can only pray that we, all of this world, may learn the error of our ways and learn to live together in peace, sooner rather than later. ('God' is not on anybody's side, and the sooner we all learn and accept that, the better off we'll all be.)

After writing an article for OLO I would normally let the posts take their course. By some comments are so far way off the mark that I feel constrained to bring the discussion back on track.
The point of the article is to highlight the illegality of what Menzies and his cabinet engaged in. All along he knew he was introducing conscription not just for overseas service but for service in a specific war, namely Vietnam. And forget the rights and wrongs of that war, my essay does not seek to canvas that.
What I am arguing is recognition of that illegal act and the effect it had on many people and through that recognition we might avoid acting in such a manner again.
Menzies did not seek volunteers before embarking on the path of conscription. What I would also like to see is recognition that, despite the circumstances of our entry into the army, we served well and loyally. And as such it would be nice now we are approaching old age to recieve some assistance with inevitable medical costs - on the basis that most got very little if any financial gain out of their time in Nashos.
For the record I was conscripted in the 3rd Intake at Pukka in 1966.
Became a tank gunner and radio operator and later volunteered for Vietnam and became an M113 driver. Typically the army did not get their act together and my time ran out. Whilst in the army I studied for and got my mature age matriculation, so the time was not wasted.
I made some really good mates, with whom I remain close.
One mate was killed on Exercise Barrawinga.
Bruce Haigh

As mentioned in my earlier post Bruce we were all conscripted for the war machine from 1951 to 1972 when Whitlam dropped this conscription fiasco set up by Menzies, you were the ones who unfortunately ended up under the now illegal lottery system, which was wrong, but I would appreciate a comment of the earlier conscripted years, although not sent to battle we were there definately for the same reason as yourself, that is if war broke out we were there to be sent post haste to that area to be shot at, it wasn't to make me at 18 years a nicer person.
Many years passed before we all were recognised and allowed to march in Anzac Parades as soldiers of that era and to join their meetings.
I know you are concerned with the Vietnam era, and rightly so, but please give thought to us others who were there for the very same reason as yourself, but luckily, although some Nasho's did end up in the Korean War, but the rest of us escaped by the skin of our teeth.

Hi there BRUCE...

I more or less thought this bland topic of yours should've faded into it's inexorable oblivion by now. However, your addendum seeks to further clarify the point you're making ? That is, people who did their two years of National Service, deserve further recognition then what they've already received ? Including benefits similar to that which eligible Veterans receive in terms of a graduated disability pension (10% thru to the TPI special rate) and other concessions ?

I'm sorry, but I didn't do my National Service, so I'm not sufficiently appraised of the full suite of benefits they (NASHO's) may currently receive ? I was aware they did receive a National Service Medal, but other benefits and concessions, I don't know ?

Is it your contention, they should receive that, which are currently enjoyed by existing eligible Veterans ? Or benefits of a lesser value then existing Veterans ? If you're suggesting they receive the same level of assistance as those who served in a war zone, I would think you may well generate some real resistance even hostility to that proposal.

Conversely, if you say they should receive some sort of perfunctory or symbolic benefit, then aren't you creating an underclass of Veteran ? And I reckon that's patently unfair to our Nasho's ! Remember, the only initial difference between a National Servicemen and a Veteran, was a Travel Warrant, and they all bleed when they're cut.

Hi again, o sung wu; I can answer that one for you! Conscripts from the Vietnam era receive no benefits, per se, at all. The only exception is if they were injured on overseas service. Shameful! You know yourself that plenty were killed or severely injured during training and exercises in Australia. What's the f'n difference?
It's occurred to me that my view is particularly jaundiced by the specific experience of 3RAR at that time, but that was the only battalion I knew. Here's a laugh! The AWOL situation was getting considerably worse as time went on, mainly due to the grunts being worked incredible hours with no time off in lieu. They'd just got back from 'Nam and thus were they "rewarded". Marriages & relationships were failing at an increasing rate. If you fronted the C.O.; he handed out the maximum penalty every time, no matter what. That was $40 (roughly a weeks pittance), 14 days CB and 10 days in the slammer. You weren't paid for time in the slammer and the 10 days was added to your service period. Anyway, in the end, some bright spark refused to accept the C.O.'s "justice" and demanded a Court Martial for some trivial offence. Other blokes then jumped on the same bandwagon. This must have alerted the powers that be at Keswick Barracks, if not in Canberra, that the C.O. had lost the plot and effective control of his Battalion. I never saw the outcome of this as I was discharged before all these "Courts Martial" commenced but I reckon it would have been pretty funny. Imagine my shock when I ran into a fella who'd been posted to a different Battalion. He told me that in his battalion, if they worked on the weekend, they were given two days off during the week, a week in the scrub, a week off, guard duty, a day off etc. We were never given an hour off in lieu, let alone a day!

Cheers mate,

Allan