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

I thank the member for Mayo for her words. There have been many very fine contributions and some fine words here today. I think what I can add to the debate is some of my own personal experience. Before I get into that, I just have some clarifiers for some of the contributions I've heard today.

A royal commission will not destroy the job prospects of those who have served. One of the members opposite, the member for Fisher, said that he challenges employers to employ a veteran. I don't think it's a challenge to employ a veteran. What I say to businesses and organisations out there is: Do yourself a favour and employ a veteran. Make a smart business decision and employ a veteran. Also, I want to say that we're doing much better than we have in the past. So it's not all bad. A lot of the processes are still too complicated and disconnected. But I'll get into a bit of that later.

I don't speak for all veterans—I don't pretend to speak for all veterans; I've never claimed to—but I do talk to a lot of them, and every day I talk to a lot of those that help men and women who have served our country. Even today, I had a phone call with someone in my electorate who's working with a veteran that's on the edge. Some of those opposite said today that veterans don't want a royal commission. That's untrue. There are some that do, there are some that are not sure about a royal commission, and there are some that don't. Let's be honest about this. But no-one speaks for all veterans. That's why it's great that many members have used this opportunity to speak about their experiences and about what they think the path ahead should be. To those that say we on this side are politicising the issue, I say that that is untrue. In fact, it's offensive.

When I say I want to bring my personal experience to this debate, it's not just as a former serviceman; it's not just as a veteran. It is often multigenerational with us. Like the member for Clark said, it's in our families. Like him, I'm the brother of veterans—Army and Navy. Like the member for Newcastle and the member for Hindmarsh and others in this place, I'm sure, I'm the son of a veteran who fought in Vietnam and lost mates. Like many here, I'm the grandson of a veteran. My pop answered the call in 1939, fighting with the 7/6th Battalion. I'm the great-grandson of a veteran who had his lungs burnt out on the Western Front. He immigrated to Australia, but he had to head up to the hills of Kinglake in the mountains above Melbourne for the clean air, because he was only operating on a quarter of a lung. But he also headed up there for the solitude. So serving this country has been in my family's DNA for many generations. I know the pride and the passion and the legacy of service and the effects on individuals and families.

I also have hundreds of veteran mates, some of whom have lost their way to such an extent that they have lost the war within that the member for Herbert articulated so well and so bravely earlier today. I thank the member for Herbert for all his hard work in supporting fellow veterans. I know that he's working hard, also, to find a way through. Another mate, a local Darwin veteran, reflected to me today—as my friend and NT colleague the member for Lingiari did earlier—that there have been so many deployments over the last 30 years. There've been multiple deployments, and there are cumulative effects with those consecutive tours that our serving men and women have done. To compound the difficulty of multiple deployments, there are the cumulative effects of different compensation acts, depending on when they served: Somalia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Bougainville, Solomon Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq—the list goes on, but hopefully not too much. The member for Macquarie reflected on the current inquest into the suicide of Sergeant Ian Turner, who did multiple deployments, multiple tours, to multiple conflict zones before committing suicide.

When it comes to supporting and saving our former defence personnel, it's clear that we're losing the war. Former Special Forces Officer Major Heston Russell recently explained that he had lost more of his mates to suicide than during four deployments to Afghanistan, and he's far from alone in that experience. From my experience working in southern Afghanistan, I understand the cumulative effect of daily tension and threat. What I mean by that is that, when people are targeting you because they want to do you harm, that has a cumulative effect. It's in this environment that you obviously become tight with your mates, with those around you. You understand the reality of the risk, but you're all in it together; you're watching each other's back. You miss that closeness later. As my friend the member for Wills also explained, from his time working in Iraq, you do come back a bit changed. You jump at loud noises. You're tense. You're a bit on edge. But it's all so hard to communicate when you need help. As a result, there are generations of veterans who haven't received the care and attention that they deserved on return or in between deployments.

It's far past time for this royal commission. So many of the government speakers repeated the one point over and over: the stats are terrible; we need to find the answers. Well, let the sunlight in. A holistic and independent look from the outside in will be very helpful. The public assurance that we are listening and that we want the answers in order to fix the support systems in a holistic way will be good. A royal commission with a set start and end date and recommendations that are made public will really improve the overall system.

The national commissioner, which is the subject of this legislation, will pass this House and go to the Senate. It may be amended. Who knows. Let's see what happens. There's an inquiry on. My sense is there may well be some need in the future for a truly independent commissioner. I also want to acknowledge the member for Braddon's contribution, in particular his brave acknowledgement of the effects on him of several young men in his unit dying by suicide. With an independent commissioner, perhaps, through an investigation of the causes and harms, some of those subsequent suicides, after the first one, may have been prevented. But many veterans worry that the government's proposed National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention will not be up to the job, that this is simply a marketing exercise and won't have the resources or independence to ask the hard questions.

Hugh Poate's son, Private Robbie Poate, was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2012. Hugh and his wife, Janny, have been actively involved with helping troubled veterans ever since. They've had extensive dealings with veterans who have ideated suicide. Hugh says: 'There's a strong public perception that a defence officer is inappropriate to head such a commission. For a commissioner to be truly independent, that person should have no current or former association with the ADF.' I wanted to put that in the Hansard, as I think he deserves to be heard. I commend the Poates for the work they're doing.

The effective use of leadership would tell the PM, as it told former PM Julia Gillard in relation to institutional child abuse, that we have a problem and that what we really need is a full royal commission to fix it. That would lay out for the country the plan. It would allow us to hear from the experts so that the public understand the suffering of some—not all by a long shot—of the people that have served protecting us, serving our nation and our nation's interests. It would provide enforceable recommendations on how we can prevent these tragic and avoidable deaths.

Our ex-service men and women need our help and support to prepare them for life after the military. They need our help to manage their mental health and wellbeing and any injuries they bring home from service, to set them on new employment pathways and get them into stable housing. I acknowledge those working in my electorate. I acknowledge the staff of DVA, of Open Arms and of the Defence Community Organisation; health professionals like GP Dr Bernie Westley, himself a veteran; allied health professionals; and ex-service organisations in my electorate. They will be greatly helped by a real and holistic process, not a continued piecemeal approach to tackling veteran suicide.

Sometimes the financial cost of a royal commission comes up as a reason not to go there, but, quite frankly, it makes me a bit sick that a government that's just brought down a trillion-dollar budget warns the nation that a royal commission on veterans' suicide would cost up to $100 million. What price we pay for liberty and for making sure that our people and their families are well. It is past time for the Prime Minister to act. He should listen to the member for Fisher, who today said: 'The stats are so alarming. Why is this happening?' Yes, indeed—why? Why are these stats so bad? Why don't we have a holistic look at the whole continuum of support that we're giving our serving people? He also said he's got his own ideas about why it's happening, so I look forward to him sharing those with the royal commission.

I can also allay the fears of the member for Ryan, who said that the subject of this bill—the commissioner—could take evidence in private, unlike a full royal commission. I can assure him that, like the full royal commission into institutional child abuse, the Royal Commissions Act has been amended to allow private evidence for sensitive matters, so there are no barriers there. Let's not put any more barriers in front of what needs to happen here.

So I ask those opposite to keep an open mind on the need for a royal commission into veterans' suicide. We'll get there. We'll get to a holistic, independent assessment informed by the experts and the families of the members themselves. Their experience of service and sacrifice will really assist future generations of Anzacs. They'll give the parents of young Australians the confidence that the system is being reviewed and those that serve our nation will be looked after. After all, that is our covenant. We all agreed in this place that that is our covenant.

So we are backing the ADF. We're backing the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We are backing ex-service organisations. And we do acknowledge the significant work they have all done in improving the systems that help our serving men and women and their families. Those organisations can be assured that the health of their institutions ultimately will only benefit from a royal commission. But, most importantly, it is the health of our veterans and their families that will be greatly improved by a full and holistic review of the system, which is what I've heard from those opposite, those on this side—that's what I've heard from everyone today on this issue. All the speakers, who I respectfully listened to all day today, said that. It is the solemn hope of us all—I've heard it—that our veterans and their families are well; that they can serve with pride; that they can go on to live rich, fulfilling lives, just being totally awesome in the workplaces in which they work; and that they can get the help that they need. That is the solemn hope of all of us. I think that we'll be able to achieve that with a full royal commission, and that's why I support that. Lest we forget.

See this speech in context