Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—On behalf of the member for Kennedy, I move:

That this House resolves to accept the principle that the primary qualifying criteria for the Australian Defence Medal specify two years effective service, instead of six years, in line with the recommendation of the Returned and Services League of Australia.

I have moved this motion on behalf of the member for Kennedy, the much revered member of this House the Hon. Bob Katter MP, who is unable to attend today as he is attending to matters in his electorate, which bore the brunt of Cyclone Larry. I am sure the House joins me in wishing him and his constituents a speedy return to their lives. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.

The member for Kennedy’s motion is based on a motion that has been on the RSL’s books since September 1999 calling on the federal government to institute a new award for service in the Australian Defence Force to be called the Australian Defence Medal, with the following conditions for the granting of the award: (a) service in the Australian Defence Force in any category after World War II and (b) completion of a minimum qualifying period of two years full-time elective service or part-time equivalent service or (c) completion of any lesser period for which he or she was engaged to serve, (d) being discharged medically unfit for further service prior to the completion of a period of two years service or its part-time equivalent due to injury, disease or death which occurred as a result of service or whilst on duty and (e) having gained an honourable discharge.

Whilst the ADF medal was announced by the government in 2004, conditions for eligibility have still not been finalised. This motion calls on the government to finalise the criteria for this medal accepting two years effective service so that those great Australians who have hitherto gone unrecognised for their efforts for our country can be duly recognised. The motion by the member for Kennedy is supported by the RSL, and I will add a couple of comments from other individuals who also support the two years of effective service as the criterion. Dave Morgan, a Vietnam veteran said:

There were thousands of dedicated servicemen and servicewomen doing their bit for this country back home to support the war in Vietnam with less than six years service. Many never left the country and have NO service medal, even though they were essential back up for us.

Mrs Shirley McLaren said:

Ex-Servicewomen from the Women’s Royal Australian Navy Service, Women’s Royal Australian Armed Corps and Women’s Royal Australian Air Force who completed their four year enlistment under Defence Force and Enlistment Policies of the time between 1951 and 1977 have also been denied the Australian Defence Medal.

These people are not current serving personnel but are servicewomen who served 55 years ago and have never been recognised as having served their nation. Also in her contribution to the debate, Mrs McLaren said—and I think this encapsulates why we should accept the two-year criterion:

Let us remember all who were called by their Nation to serve Australia with pride and dedication. Each one is part of our heritage and remember them all.

In conclusion, this leads me to ask for support within this House for the criteria that the member for Kennedy has outlined.

In the few moments left to me, I would like to raise another issue that is ancillary to this issue—that is, forgotten veterans of World War II who are currently fighting for recognition for access to the veterans’ gold card. Mr Ken Coultan, a constituent of mine in his 90s, is not well and in hospital but still fighting for the recognition for what he and other forgotten veteran mates should have access to to assist them with their health care in their twilight years.

See this speech in context