Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Of course I'm pleased to support this motion. At the outset I want to say that of course we take this issue of veteran suicide very seriously, and I want to acknowledge all the previous speakers, but in particular those with lived experience who are working to reduce suicide in Defence and the veterans community. I'm doing something about it, myself personally, both in my community and nationally, and I want the government of the day, whatever government it might be, the current government or a future government led by the Labor Party, to do everything they can about it. Let's be straight. The government's announcement in February of a new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention and a Veteran Family Advocate came after widespread calls, from veterans primarily, including the gentleman opposite, media becoming very much involved, and calls from Labor that action needed to be taken on veteran suicide. It is a combined effort of a lot of stakeholders, because they, like we, were sick of the unbelievable rate of suicide in the Defence and veterans community.

As I reliably understand it, the Prime Minister said to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, 'Give me something, but anything but a royal commission.' If he wants to correct the record on that he can, but that's what I reliably understand. At the time when this was announced, Labor cautiously welcomed the national commissioner. I thought it was an important step forward. We didn't want to let the perfect—nothing's perfect, but a royal commission would have been as close to—we didn't want to let that become the enemy of the good. We're also broadly supportive of the new Veteran Family Advocate, because obviously families play a primary role in mental health and suicide prevention and they need to be supported.

But since then, I think it's fair to say—and I think a lot of veterans and some of the families that have lost love ones perhaps suspected this—that the national commissioner, unlike what the Prime Minister said, won't in fact be better than a royal commission, as has been claimed by the PM and others. I think the PM's got a lot of work to do to convince the veteran community that he is genuine in wanting to tackle this issue. A growing concern, shared by many veterans, is that this could be simply a bit of marketing spin which won't accomplish what a royal commission would. I think it's fair to say that this permanent commissioner could have been recommended by a royal commission, as well as a whole series of other recommendations; but unfortunately we've just gone straight to what the PM thought was going to be the solution. Or perhaps it was just the work-around. This permanent commissioner is important; however, only a full royal commission with a clear start and end date will achieve everything that needs to be achieved if we are to honour veterans. This national commissioner could end up being little more than a review of state coroner reports into deaths at the hands of young patriot Australians. That's the danger. As I said, this permanent commissioner could have been a recommendation of a full royal commission, but it looks like we won't be able to see that achieved in the short term. It won't be until we see the legislation for this national commissioner that we'll be able to scrutinise it and see if it will indeed have all the powers of a royal commission. But I welcome this motion and I congratulate the member for Herbert for it. It's a step in the right direction.

See this speech in context