Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to highlight one man’s quest for justice from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. My constituent had joined the New Zealand Navy as a young lad in 1955. About 10 years later the Australian Navy was short of engineers and the New Zealand Navy was short of electricians. It had been usual practice for servicemen from across the Tasman to be ‘loaned’ to various services. This plan was to have four New Zealanders join the Australian Navy and four Australians join the New Zealand Navy. My constituent, Robert Wilson, is not sure what happened to the Australians moving to New Zealand. However, he was one of four New Zealanders who packed their bags and moved to Australia.

Mr Wilson and his wife flew to Sydney on 7 July 1966. They were accommodated at the Royal Naval House—known as ‘Johnnies’. Of the four New Zealanders who travelled to Australia, two were married and two were single. Mr Wilson and the other married New Zealander and his wife were accommodated at Johnnies. Both men took the oath of allegiance and a couple of days later were drafted onto HMAS Kuttabul. They were both posted to HMAS Vampire and sailed for the Far East Strategic Reserve in January 1967. The two single New Zealanders also arrived in Australia at this time, one being posted to Melbourne and the other to HMAS Kuttabul.

Mr Wilson and his mate were given identical postings on HMAS Vampire. During this time HMAS Vampire escorted HMAS Sydney to Vietnam, ferrying personnel and supplies.  The ship and her personnel were also deployed to Hong Kong to evacuate Australian Embassy staff due to civil unrest in that area. Both men were then drafted back to HMAS Kuttabul Fleet Maintenance Unit in 1967. Both families then moved back to New Zealand in June 1968 to complete their New Zealand service. Mr Wilson, his Australian-born wife and his family migrated to Australia following the completion of his service. He became an Australian citizen in 1991.

Upon reaching the age of 70, Mr Wilson contacted his workmate, who is also living in Australia now, and he confirmed that his mate had qualified for a gold card. So Mr Wilson lodged an application for a gold card, but it was rejected. He had, in the department’s words, ‘rendered qualifying service’ but in their eyes he was ‘not a member of the forces of a Commonwealth or allied country, who was domiciled in Australia or an external Territory immediately before enlistment in those forces’. Mr Wilson again rang his mate in Tasmania and was assured that his mate’s application was approved. Mr Wilson came to me, his local member, and I made representations to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, to no avail. The minister pointed to privacy restrictions preventing the checking on his mate’s eligibility and the legitimacy of his entitlement. The minister also advised that:

… it is not uncommon to have people in similar circumstances granted different eligibilities due to variations in their service particulars.

When two men, with their wives, move to Australia to serve with the RAN and then serve on the same ships and finish their service in New Zealand I cannot see why the minister cannot check the records to see why one man receives a gold card and the other does not. If the cases are different then the department should be able to confirm that this is so without hiding behind privacy laws; otherwise justice is not served in this case. Mr Wilson advises me also that one of the single men who came over at the time has been granted a gold card.

I call on the minister not to hide behind so-called privacy issues and to examine both cases on their merits and advise me why two servicemen with the same service records should not both have a gold card or the same entitlement. I implore the minister to invoke the commonsense rule and apply it to this case. Having myself been a minister and a chief of staff to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs I know how difficult it is for the bureaucracy to admit to a mistake and eat humble pie. On this occasion I believe it is warranted.

See this speech in context