slow n low, you beat me to it, but my two cents anyway.
The Army gained custody of the helos primarily because of the RAAFs failure to provide support during the Vietnam conflict - in my estimation. The RAAF had a policy of not permitting its helos to be used where they were, or may be, exposed to hostile action. Not of much help to the Army engaged in combat. Two examples of the failure to provide support were the Long Tan battle where the troops needed ammo resupply and RAAF tasking refused to provide an aircraft because it would necessitate flying in an active combat zone. The US Army offered to do the job but in the meantime a courageous RAAF junior officer (pilot of the Huey) took matters into his own hands and said "We're going" despite protestations from his co-pilot. And they got the job done, and subsequently justly decorated for a job well done.
Another occasion was when the Army suffered major casualties in the Long Hai mountains. The RAAF refused to supply support to evacuate the wounded, dying and dead and it was left to the Armys 161 Recce Flight using their Bell 47s and US Army Hueys to do the job. Once again the RAAF not permitted to expose themselves to possible hostile action. Of course all this is a result of policy made at a high level and is no reflection on the aircrew at the coal face.
A very well written paper addressing the Army/RAAF relationship can be found here
Fourays - The Australian Army Aviation Association Inc
Any slight against the Army, their professionalism or ability when it comes to aviation, is just that - a slight. Their accident record is no different than any other aviation outfit when it comes to causes. In that regard ElPerro is just making cheap shots.