Santamaria and spectrum. (Letters).

SIR: I thank Michael O'Connor for his courteous explanation (Letters, September 2001) of how he sees the history of the early link between the Australia Defence Association and the National Civic Council and his being executive head of the former and Victorian secretary of the latter. However, in saying that I accuse the ADA of guilt by association with the NCC, and that the NCC never put any money into the ADA apart from his salary, he obscures the early, almost total dependence of the ADA on the NCC.

In July 1980, three years after Mr O'Connor became Victorian secretary of the ADA, he wrote to the ADA executive setting out five options for its future, a situation arising, he stated, from a dispute within the NCC about its own future. Option One stated: "ADA is separated from the NCC. The subsidy factor is lost and the organization will decline in activity and influence." Option Four stated: "ADA separates from the NCC and raises sufficient money to replace the subsidy--about $10,000 or 50 company memberships ..."

In the years since the NCC-ADA divorce, Mr O'Connor has become a respected advocate for realistic defence policies. I noted his comment that Santamaria was "superficial in a field that calls for serious study and analysis" (that is, ...