David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In response to members opposite, I rise to support this motion. In 1998, ex-service associations called for recognition of voluntary service in the Australian Defence Force. Australia has a terrific awards system that recognises valour, campaigns and long service. These awards are well established and well recognised as having great significance, but they do not recognise voluntary service within Australia for periods less than the long service provisions—currently 15 years. The creation of the Australian Defence Medal was a measure designed to address this gap without devaluing the criteria for any existing award. Widespread consultation resulted in the support of ex-service groups, including the RSL, for this award.

However, as a significant stakeholder, the ADF was also consulted. This consultation resulted in feedback from CDF which had two significant changes. Firstly, there was a contextual statement, as follows:

The six-year eligibility criterion was chosen to recognise the changing nature of ADF service. It is a medal for contemporary times, recognising a commitment to the nation that has been demonstrated through service over and above initial enlistment periods.

The other change was a consequential increase in the minimum qualifying period from two to six years. I contend that this substantially changes the nature of the Australian Defence Medal from that which was requested—that is, a recognition of service during the period 1946 to 2005. The request was not intended to cover long service, operational service or valiant service but was for recognition of the fact that a person had made a commitment to serve their nation and to be available for the full range of tasks to which the government of the day might wish to commit them.

The ADF position that contemporary service requires a minimum period of six years to be recognised is contested by many and, I would argue, justifiably so. It may well be that this is implemented for future service men and women. Whilst I would not support that, I recognise that at least they will know where that threshold is set and can make decisions about their career based on that. For those who have been discharged before this date, the implementation of the ADM with a six-year criterion I believe is profoundly unjust. For those people, where their service was honourable and effective, there is no option for them to extend to meet that six-year criterion. So we have a situation where the draft criteria for this award do not reflect the original request of the ex-service community and it excludes many ex-service men and women who voluntarily served their country on a full-time basis in accordance with the defence requirements of the day.

The current requirements are for six years but they have some caveats such as those who have honourably served but have been discharged due to policies of the time—for example, a woman who was pregnant or people who have been severely disabled or who have died in the course of duty. I would argue that we should also be recognising those people who have served and been honourably discharged in accordance with the mores of the day. For example, women in the Women’s Royal Australian Navy were enlisted to serve for four years and, in light of the contemporary policy of their day, this was considered a reasonable and satisfactory time to offer effective service. By limiting the award with this caveat of six years it means that these people who voluntarily served their country with honour—and often with distinction— get no recognition for that service. I believe that is profoundly unjust and must be addressed.

Established leadership and management theory recognises the value of celebrating the contribution of staff at all levels. If the ADF wishes to attract and retain people into the future, it needs to be prepared to recognise and celebrate the voluntary service that meets the expectations of the service of that day. On Anzac Day, medals are a tangible symbol which identify somebody as having been an ex-serviceman, and are highly prized. By denying those who are not deployed overseas recognition on such occasions, we are disenfranchising them and devaluing the contribution of people without whom those who served overseas could not have achieved their mission. I call on the government to expedite the conclusion of this issue to make sure that we recognise those service men and women who have volunteered and served their country with distinction. (Time expired).

See this speech in context