House debates
Wednesday, 15 February 2006
Matters of Public Importance
Defence: Equipment
4:34 pm
Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source
Firstly I should take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Defence on being appointed to the portfolio. It is indeed a weighty portfolio with a lot of responsibility, given the demands made on our troops in various parts of the world and in various battlegrounds of the world. I am disappointed, however, to hear the minister say that he comes to this issue with an open mind. I do not want the minister to come to this issue with an open mind. What I want him to come to this portfolio with is a determination to ensure that our troops are properly equipped, properly kitted and properly supported, whether they are in Australia or overseas.
It seems to me that some things never change with conservative governments when they send other people’s children away to fight in foreign wars. The Menzies government committed Australian troops to Vietnam, a modern war of that era. They sent young men away who were poorly equipped, with Second World War gear that was more suited to the desert than it was to the jungle environment of Vietnam—boots that fell apart in a matter of weeks, pouches and personal webbing that rotted within months and weapons which were well into obsolescence.
And who can forget the decision by the then Liberal government that any Australian soldier killed in Vietnam would be buried overseas and his body not returned to Australia? When one mother determined that she wanted her son’s body returned to Australia, the Liberal government refused to accept her wishes. When she persevered and gained the support of the media, the government relented and brought the body home. They then waited a few weeks, till after the funeral, until all had quietened down, and they sent this mother the bill for the cost of bringing her son’s body home. Of course it was a bill she never paid.
Issues involving Australian troops deployed overseas have long attracted media interest. I believe that can be a good thing. We saw the deployment of Australian soldiers in 2000 to Afghanistan and shortly afterwards started to read stories in the media about a shortage of equipment and about inappropriate, outdated and obsolete kits. Stories also hit the paper about some of our special forces soldiers doing the rounds of military disposal and camping stores buying equipment in advance of deployment in the knowledge that equipment on issue was simply not up to scratch. I know that to be the truth because I had the opportunity to speak to some of these blokes myself.
Also I was one of a number of members who had the opportunity to visit our blokes based at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. We flew most of the way in a Russian built Ilyushin aircraft, which was piloted by a Latvian crew. We were horrified that this plane was used to transport Australian troops. We raised this issue directly with the then minister, shortly after which we were pleased to be advised that our troops would no longer fly or be transported in that aircraft.
Australian troops are famous for going crook about a range of issues, usually the food. Many a saying has grown up in military circles about army messing standards, most of them inappropriate for the delicate ears of this chamber. But, when diggers stop going crook about the food and start talking to you seriously about their equipment—personal protection gear, weapons, ammunition and personal kit—you know that there is a genuine problem.
I might say that the issue raised with us on many occasions was the question of campaign medals. Campaign medals are an important part of a deployed soldier’s uniform on his or her return home. In my view, it is a national disgrace that our troops, five years after having done the initial job in Afghanistan and fighting with great skill and courage, still await the issuing of their campaign medals. This is an outrageous situation. The same issue was raised with us again when we visited Iraq late last year and spoke to our troops based there.
Does this government and do our ministers not understand the importance to our troops of campaign medals? Have we not yet learnt that recognition delayed to our troops coming home is recognition denied? Promises have been made about these medals since 2004 but, as another Anzac Day looms, it appears that our troops, who have won worldwide acclaim for their exploits, will again march without their campaign medals recognising their service in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you think the troops are not going crook about that, Mr Minister, you go and talk to them; I bet you that they will tell you exactly what they feel. The point here is that, if we do not value the worth and the efforts of our troops in various campaigns, we downgrade the worth of the individual soldier.
But the issue here, as I have said, goes well beyond campaign medals. Just as veterans in Vietnam had to contend with equipment designed for use in the desert, our troops in Afghanistan were told at the time to make do with equipment designed for the tropics. That is a fact; there is no doubt about that. When soldiers go into action, they put their faith in many things; but, above all, I think there are three things that a soldier puts his faith in. He may put his faith in God, he will certainly put his faith in his mates and he must be able to put his faith in his kit and equipment. The priority of these things may and does vary according to the circumstances. A soldier knows that he can put his trust in God, and Australian diggers know that, above all, they can put their trust in their mates—because that is the Australian tradition. Australian soldiers too need to know that they can put their trust in their kit. But, in many instances in the recent past, they have simply not been able to do that, unless they have gone out and bought, stolen, borrowed or begged equipment that they know they can trust, rely on and call their own.
My view is that, if a government underresources its diggers, that government undervalues the lives of those diggers. Is there a problem? Are our soldiers being underresourced—particularly our special services blokes, who go out into the sharp end, way beyond areas of immediate support? An article headed ‘Enemy is in Canberra, say Diggers’ was published in the Australian newspaper on Monday, 3 February—a newspaper that I think goes out of its way to support this government. The minister describes this article as, at best, sensational and, in some ways, cruel.
No comments