Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

On 9 March I had the extraordinary honour of presenting Battle of Long Tan veteran Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith with his Star of Gallantry award at the Maryborough Military Museum. It is thought around 400 people attended the ceremony, including VC winners Keith Payne and Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith, who along with the crowd were there to pay tribute to Harry and his men and their extraordinary victory—the one they secured at Long Tan back in August 1966.

One might ask: why would the federal member present a national war hero with his award and not the Governor-General? The question is worth asking because it reveals a trail of ineptitude, stubbornness and frustration leading from 1966 right up to today. Let me state, however, that the chain of circumstance is no reflection on the Governor-General, as Harry Smith will confirm and, indeed, conveyed to her. It was of a protest that he was talking.

You would be aware of the historic Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966, but you may not be aware of the surrounding furore that met the awards that should have been granted from that battle. I would wager few would know the difficulties surrounding the presentation of the awards which have been approved, including that of Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith. The matter has dragged on for a number of years following a review by the Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal in 2008 which reinstated the original award, a DSO, recommended to Lieutenant Colonel Smith. At the time of the battle he was Major Smith.

At Maryborough he received the DSO equivalent, the Star of Gallantry, second only to the Victoria Cross. Upgraded with him—although both were not presented on the day—were Dave Sabben and Geoff Kendall, who were awarded the Medal of Gallantry, the equivalent of the old Military Cross. However, 12 other men from D Company did not receive their gallantry awards or upgraded awards, those being three medals for gallantry and nine recommendations for gallantry. To that point, this group had only received two MIDs.

The battle commander’s recommendation—that being Smith’s recommendation—and the end-of-war review disregarded them on the basis of alleged lost paperwork. This is something that Harry Smith and I want to see reconsidered. It is something that I have spoken about before. There is ample evidence from other sources to see this injustice corrected.

Lieutenant Colonel Smith, having had his original award reinstated, agreed that it would be appropriate for the Governor-General to present this Star of Gallantry and the two medals for gallantry to Lieutenants Kendall and Sabben and also a D Company unit citation at a ceremony at Governor House on 17 August last year. As is right and proper, Lieutenant Colonel Smith requested that with the surviving men of D Company—after all it was their citation—some of their family members and the next of kin of those killed in the battle attend the investiture. Here is where it becomes quite distressing, especially for those who planned to attend the ceremony. The Department of Defence rejected a request as to the costs associated with the transportation to Canberra of the families and of the next of kin of those killed. Defence agreed to fund the transport costs of the officers but refused to provide mainly service transport for some of the 80 survivors and 23 next of kin to be present for the citation presentation.

Let me balance that with a report in today’s Courier-Mail which outlines some of the expenses racked up by the Department of Defence between July and December last year. The Courier-Mail states that more than $400,000 was spent on dinners and receptions in Australia and a further $361,000 was spent on overseas hospitality in that six-month period. Included in those costs were $7,900 on gifts, $5,000 on childminding and $2,000 on club memberships. I understand the way of the world and I know that these costs are part and parcel of doing business at the diplomatic and military levels. I am not going to be mealymouthed and take a populist view in criticising individual items of spending, but I make the point that I cannot fathom why a commensurate degree of hospitality and courtesy could not be extended to the heroes of Long Tan and their loved ones.

After all, these are the men who fought and won at Long Tan. It is their victory which marks our national day. Long Tan Day is their day and they are the ones who won that victory, and many of their comrades died in that Vietnam war achieving that victory. Yet the defence department could not extend itself to transport these men and these families and the next of kin of those who died in Vietnam to Canberra for the event. Just how fair dinkum are we?

Let me go over the circumstances for you again, Mr Deputy Speaker. On that dreadful day in August 1966, 105 Australians and three New Zealanders faced a force of at least 2½ thousand North Vietnamese. It was in a way a chance encounter. Intelligence said that there was the 5th Division of the North Vietnamese army, a force of about 5,000, somewhere in the area. But this was largely disregarded by headquarters, in fact so much so that B Company was sent on leave about that time. What we have subsequently found out is that the Australian base at Nui Dat, which on that afternoon was to have a concert with Col Joye and Little Pattie, was the target. Had it not been for Smith and his 108 colleagues, God only knows what would have happened on that day. I ask honourable members to think about what might have happened, about what a bloodbath could have occurred. By contrast, Smith was there, right up in the rubber plantation, lying flat down in the mud, in three or four inches of water, with his New Zealand artillery officer, Morrie Stanley, calling down 3,500 rounds of artillery into the rubber plantation in front of them. They were fighting 15 metres from the enemy and they fought off 2½ thousand of them. It was one of Australia’s most glorious victories. Let me say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, we should not go to a memorial on Long Tan Day and put our hands on our hearts unless we do due honour to these men. I will not rest until those 12 men, who have yet to be honoured, are honoured.

See this speech in context