Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

recognises that the atrocities that occurred in Rwanda between 1994 and 1995 were some of the most horrific and appalling crimes seen in recent history;

(2)

notes that between April and July 1994 up to one million Tutsi and moderate Hutus were killed at the hands of the militia;

(3)

notes that in response, Australia deployed 657 ADF members to Rwanda in 1994 and 1995 as part of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR);

(4)

notes that the Australian contingent was largely a medical team whose key role was to provide medical care and health support for UNAMIR and, where possible, those injured by the massacres;

(5)

acknowledges that Australian troops came under direct fire in and around refugee camps and faced the daily threat presented by landmines and other explosive devices placed to maim or kill Australian soldiers;

(6)

acknowledges that these peacekeepers experienced the most horrible events such as the massacre of up to 8,000 men, women and children at the Kibeho refugee camp in April 1995;

(7)

notes with concern that many of these troops are now suffering serious mental and physical disabilities as the result of their service;

(8)

notes that despite the severe trauma and the danger faced by Australian Peacekeepers in Rwanda, their service is still not treated as warlike service under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act; and

(9)

calls on the Government to immediately reclassify this service from ‘hazardous’ to ‘warlike’ in recognition of the risk faced by these troops and the magnificent contribution they made to the protection of Rwandan citizens.

As you know, Australian peacekeepers have a long and distinguished history. Australian peacekeepers have been in the field with the United Nations continuously for over 50 years. But this important service to the international community has come at considerable cost to both veterans and their families. The experience of our soldiers in Rwanda brings into sharp focus just how tough and dangerous this service can be. The atrocities that occurred in Rwanda were some of the most horrific and appalling crimes seen in recent history. ‘Genocide’ is the only word that can be used with respect to the infamous 100 days of killing in Rwanda. During this short period it is estimated that one million men, women and children were killed by government led militias. It ranks as one of the most horrific, evil and reprehensible crimes of our generation.

In response, Australia deployed 657 ADF members to Rwanda as part of the United Nations assistance mission. The Australian contingent was largely a medical team whose key role was to provide medical care and health support for the mission and, where possible, those injured by the massacres. These peacekeepers were clearly at risk and experienced the most horrible circumstances. The hospital in Kigali was established under the most trying of circumstances, with troops exposed to the massive scale of violence and postwar carnage that had occurred. Troops were directly confronted with the massacre of up to 8,000 men, women and children at the Kibeho refugee camp in April 1995.

What is not widely known is that Australian soldiers participated in armed operations to clear refugee camps of armed militia, which saw them come under fire on a number of occasions. Our troops also faced the daily threat presented by landmines and other explosive devices placed in schools and other public places to maim or kill Australian soldiers. Many of these troops are now suffering serious mental and physical disabilities as a result of their service. In fact, this contingent suffered psychological casualties on a similar scale to Vietnam and other warlike operations. Anecdotal evidence suggests that at least 10 per cent of both contingents are totally and permanently disabled psychologically, and the majority of troops deployed to Rwanda still suffer psychological scars.

Despite the severe trauma and the danger faced by Australian peacekeepers in Rwanda, their service is still not treated as warlike service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. It is currently regarded as the equivalent of operational service, not carrying any benefits above normal peacetime service.

It was originally Labor’s policy to classify Rwanda as non-warlike. This decision was made at a time when the full scope of the horrors and atrocities was not known or properly understood. More than 10 years later, we now know what our troops faced during this mission. We know of the gut-wrenching acts of barbarity they were forced to witness, and we know of the devastating effects their service has had on those present and on their families back home.

It is no longer good enough for governments of either persuasion to say we cannot change the decisions of previous ministers and that it is too late to correct a grievous wrong. Labor believes that the peacekeeping service in Rwanda should be reclassified from non-warlike to warlike. Labor realises that it is never too late to fix failed policy, especially one that affects our service personnel in such a harmful and detrimental manner. While I welcome recent reports that the new minister is looking at the government’s position on Rwanda, I call on the government to take Labor’s lead and give our service personnel who served in Rwanda the recognition and support they need and deserve. Australia has asked a lot of our troops and they have always responded without complaint. They are true professionals and we must act in this case. (Time expired)

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue of the Rwandan service by Australian defence personnel in the House. In fact, I am very pleased to be a part of this debate because it is a historic day for this issue. When the then Minister for Defence sent the first rotation of troops supporting a medical mission to Rwanda, he sent them off on the basis that it would be non-warlike service, and the member for Bruce has recognised that. The member for Bruce has said in the past that this decision by the Labor government at the time was a failure of policy. That certainly is the case because at that time there was an awful lot of history and concern in relation to Rwanda and the repeated massacres that had occurred. The troops, however, went off and Australian defence personnel served their time in Rwanda between 1994 and 1996. Over that period, more than 630 ADF personnel participated. There were medical troops, but there were also support personnel and a group of infantrymen to support the activities of the medical personnel.

The member for Bruce referred to what occurred at Kibeho. I think that is the salutary lesson to be learnt from the whole event. Basically, a massacre occurred there and Australian troops on the scene were unable to take action under the terms of engagement upon which they had been sent. They had to be extremely brave and, in the face of people being murdered before their eyes, they had to take action to clear the area of the belligerents and to try to evacuate displaced people who had been hacked at and injured to deliver them up for medical treatment.  Across the world there was recognition of those horrors. There is no way that anyone in this parliament can say that information did not get back. It did get back; it was known just what kind of severe trauma faced those troops in that difficult circumstance. The knowledge that that trauma was going to lead them towards post-traumatic stress disorder and those kind of illnesses was obvious from the outset.

This government did recognise that there was a need to review conditions of service in examples such as this and began a nature of service review in 2002 looking at all these issues. The outcome of that process in relation to the Rwanda issue is now known. An announcement has been made today that the service in Rwanda of those more than 630 ADF personnel who contributed to Operation Tamar has been upgraded to warlike service. That was announced this morning by the Hon. Bruce Billson, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. I congratulate the minister on that because there are many of us on the coalition backbench committee who have argued this issue for many years. It is important that it be recognised that these troops did undergo very trying, warlike service in every respect and that their service on that occasion was exemplary. They can be held out across the world for their achievements at a time when the world community was failing the civilians of Rwanda.

Warlike service is something that Australians have shown over the years they can contribute to very effectively under all those difficult circumstances. Now, however, Rwanda veterans will receive the gold card, the service pension at age 60 and all the other benefits that apply under warlike service. It is an honour to be here on the day when that occurs and to acknowledge the importance of giving recognition to troops who contributed so much in such difficult circumstances. (Time expired)

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to congratulate the shadow spokesperson for the Australian Labor Party in bringing this matter of the Rwandan service of Australian defence personnel before the House. I think that the member for Bruce, Alan Griffin, since he has moved into that shadow portfolio, has done an immense amount of work. He has certainly made himself available to the broad veteran community across Australia. I think he has done an immense amount of work to restore the credibility of the position of shadow spokesperson, and I know he is held in very high esteem by those members of the veteran community that he has had the chance to meet with in the past couple of months.

I am very pleased that this motion has been brought forward today. I am also very pleased at the announcement made by the member for Blair, who spoke before me. I did understand, however, that that press release was embargoed until this afternoon. But, regardless of the timing, the important thing is that the government have responded to this motion brought forward by Alan Griffin today. I appreciate what he has done, and I certainly applaud what the minister has done in now recognising this service, because it was a failure of policy in the past and one that was carried over a number of governments—a failure of policy which has now been rectified as a result of the initiative taken by Alan Griffin in this place today.

I have had the opportunity, over the years, to speak to some of the people in Rwanda—some of them are still serving—and it is often harrowing to listen to their stories and to imagine the appalling frustration that they confronted when they saw the massacres taking place and, because of their rules of engagement, were unable to respond to protect those innocent men, women and children who were being slaughtered in the most horrific ways. I think the courage of those soldiers is seen, too, in stories where they themselves broke out from the relative safety of some of the areas they were in to go out and, despite orders, rescue some of the kids and smuggle them back to safety and to medical aid.

I was looking at a story by a fellow named Paul Jordan who was at camp Kibeho during the massacre. He says:

As we worked, we were often called upon to make snap decisions and to ‘play God’ by deciding which patients’ lives to save. We were forced to move many seriously injured victims to one side because we thought they would not live or because they would simply take too long to save.

They are dreadful decisions for soldiers who are trained as medics to have to make. He went on:

Our medical work continued unabated in the Zambian compound as the casualties flowed relentlessly. At about 10.00 a.m., some of the displaced persons attempted to break out and we saw them running through the re-entrants. We watched (and could do little more) as these people were hunted down and shot. The RPA soldiers were no marksmen: at times they were within ten metres of their quarry and still missed them. If they managed to wound some hapless escapee, they would save their valuable bullets, instead bayoneting their victim to death. This went on for two hours until all the displaced persons who had run were dead or dying.

These are the dreadful things that these soldiers have to live with and had to observe. They were incredibly frustrated that they could not protect those people and that they were unable, in so many circumstances, to save lives and to do the job that they thought they were there to do. No wonder so many of them are facing depression and the issues which go hand-in-hand with post-traumatic stress disorder in their civilian lives. I support the motion and congratulate Alan Griffin.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Bruce on bringing to our attention, very clearly, the grave situation which had occurred in Rwanda. Often, it is ‘out of sight and out of mind’ and, as time goes on, we tend to forget some of the horrific acts that took place over such a long period.

Also, of course, as has been indicated by other contributors to the debate, some 657 ADF members were deployed to Rwanda in 1994 and 1995 as part of the United Nations assistance mission in that sad country. The motion moved by the honourable member for Bruce states:

That this House:

…         …         …

(8)

notes that despite the severe trauma and the danger faced by Australian Peacekeepers in Rwanda, their service is still not treated as warlike service under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act; and

(9)

calls on the Government to immediately reclassify this service from ‘hazardous’ to ‘warlike’ in recognition of the risk faced by these troops and the magnificent contribution they made to the protection of Rwandan citizens.

It is amazing that what happened in Rwanda was largely ignored by the international community at the time. I do not think that really says very much for the international community. Media reports were scarce—virtually non-existent—and therefore the seriousness of these civil atrocities took some time to gain wider acknowledgment.

Information has since spread and is often accompanied by considerable disbelief that the initial strife could occur virtually unnoticed by the world at large. The release of Hollywood films such as Hotel Rwanda in Australia last year has helped to enhance further general community awareness of this dark period in Rwanda’s history. The fact that, 11 years after the slaughter, we are here today discussing the topic in parliament is further acknowledgment that the senseless slaughter of an estimated one million people was totally and completely unacceptable.

As an international community, we must remain vigilant in preventing anything like this happening anywhere again. Historically, before the slaughter, tensions had been bubbling in Rwanda for some three decades. Rwanda was initially a colony of the Kingdom of Belgium but gained independence in 1962. Then, in 1959, the Hutu community launched a series of attacks on the Tutsis, and this resulted in the Hutus taking over power and eventually remaining in that position for some 45 years. Throughout these years, the Tutsis retaliated several times, with the struggle for power resulting in an almost constant state of uneasiness. It was an incredibly unenviable way to live, with some citizens living their entire lives in a constant state of discomfort and apprehension.

In April 1994, the tensions between these two people boiled over, coming to a head with the shooting down of the Hutu President’s plane. It was the final trigger for violence on an unprecedented scale, which resulted in widespread, fanatical, unfettered killings. The death toll of Tutsis is estimated to be about one million people, with countless women and children numbered among the victims.

An international contingent of peacekeeper soldiers had been on the ground in Rwanda, but the majority of officers were withdrawn when some of them were killed. By late April, with most of the international peacekeeping contingent gone, the Tutsis retaliated and the unencumbered killing escalated. Tutsi rebels renewed their military offensive and eventually overthrew the government and this, in turn, triggered a mass exodus of some two million Hutus into Zaire. It is estimated that over the following months about 50,000 of those refugees died from hunger, disease and lack of water.

There were 657 Australian Defence Force personnel among the international military contingent that was involved in supporting Rwanda and trying to restore stability. I would like to commend the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for his announcement today that the Australian Defence Force personnel who served in Rwanda from 1994 to 1996 will have their service recognised as ‘warlike’ following a review by the Department of Defence and a decision by the Australian government. This means that the additional benefits will flow through to those soldiers who risked so much to ensure that the situation in Rwanda was improved. This is a positive decision and I particularly want to commend the new minister. (Time expired)

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion to change the classification of peacekeeping service in Rwanda from 1994 to 1996 to ‘warlike’ from its current status as ‘hazardous’. I would also like to commend the member for Bruce, all other members of this House who have supported this motion and the government for taking action following its presentation.

It is also in the best interests of all those who served in Rwanda that support for this motion has come from both sides of the parliament. Over 600 Australian personnel served in Rwanda as part of the United Nations mission in Rwanda. Australia has participated in peacekeeping activities all over the world, and our troops are renowned for their humanitarian approach, their generosity and their courage.

The circumstances in which our troops served in Rwanda were often difficult and traumatic and were very certainly dangerous. The main function of the Australian troops sent to Rwanda was to protect the Australian Medical Support Force, which was providing medical and surgical facilities to support the UN military forces and agencies.

Two separate contingents of 300 soldiers were sent. But they were not allowed, under the rules of engagement, to intervene in any tribal warfare or to stop the violence. Paul Jordan, who served with the Australian forces in Rwanda, has written an eye witness account for the UN on the experiences of the Australian forces at the Kibeho displaced persons camp in 1995.

The camp had been surrounded by two battalions of Tutsi troops from the Rwandan Patriotic Army, the RPA, which regarded it as a sanctuary for the Hutus who had massacred the Tutsis in 1994. Their aim was to empty the camp and, in so doing, the Hutus were vulnerable to revenge attacks by the RPA. I urge all members with an interest in this issue to read Mr Jordan’s account. I do not believe that anybody who reads it would continue to support the denial of ‘warlike’ status to our soldiers who served in Rwanda. Again, I am pleased that the government has changed that view.

Mr Jordan explains that over less than a week, in April 1995, Australian soldiers were sent to Kibeho to protect the medical staff who were providing medical assistance to refugees. RPA troops were in the camp and the refugees had been forced to congregate in a particular part of the camp. RPA troops would frequently fire into the air in an effort to control the crowds of frightened people. Tension was mounting between the RPA troops and the refugees and there were reports of killings in the camp.

As the days passed, the Australians in the camp would offer what help they could, but it was clear that refugees were being summarily shot and that the RPA troops were intent on killing as many as they could. Over one weekend alone, our troops estimated that over 4,000 people had been massacred at the camp. I have met personally with some of the Australians who served in the camp at this time and I cannot do justice to their accounts in the short time I have to speak on this motion. But I would like to mention some of the instances that they have recounted.

For example, three men were on a patrol outside the camp, trying to find where people may have been attacked. They came across a couple of huts. They were going through the grass and a small boy came out and said to them, ‘If you don’t move quickly, you’re about to be shot.’ At that point they dived for cover and the wall of one of the huts erupted in a hail of machinegun fire from a 50-calibre Russian machinegun that was concealed. Fortunately, our people were not hit, but they were stuck there for seven to eight hours, whilst they had to wait for darkness in the mud to try to get out. Bullets from a 50-calibre machinegun, as you know Mr Deputy Speaker, are large—they are not small calibre weapons. They were hitting our troops in their equipment. One of our guys had his backpack ripped off his back by this machinegun fire. So they were clearly under enormous pressure.

The soldiers also witnessed awesome atrocities at the camp, with mothers throwing their children over the fence so they could be protected by the troops. Those outside were being slaughtered in front of these soldiers’ eyes, and there was nothing they could do to prevent this from happening because of the rules of engagement. I am sure that that would have caused enormous trauma and suffering for those people and for the soldiers, who knew that they could do nothing to prevent the senseless slaughter.

It was clear that our soldiers were operating in a warlike situation, in considerable danger and witnessing cruel and barbaric acts. There are many examples of situations in which our soldiers were fired upon and in which they were in danger from hostile forces. It is hard for those of us who have not been to Rwanda to understand the danger our men and women faced or the horror that they endured. As a result, many Australian veterans of Rwanda have been found to be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

There are figures that indicate that 31 per cent of Vietnam veterans suffered from PTSD. Twenty per cent of those in Rwanda suffered the same sort of illness. These figures show the reason why we need to provide full recognition. I welcome the fact that people can get some medical assistance now as a result of that classification. It is clear to me that the government’s recognition of these veterans as having served in a war zone is long overdue. I commend the member for Bruce for bringing forward this motion, the government for finally acting and those who gave so much in the quest for peace. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address private members’ business in relation to the reclassification of ADF service in Rwanda from non-warlike to warlike. I think it is important to put on the record, firstly, that whilst the troops in this initial operation were sent there under a previous administration, we did send 638 ADF personnel to Rwanda in Operation Tamar, a United Nations mission. Whilst it was today’s opposition who sent our troops there at the time, I am sure they sent them with the best of intentions, not thinking that a UN peace mission in Rwanda would witness the sorts of atrocities that we on this side and those on the other side saw—and which, I think, most people in Australia saw evidence of after the troops were sent to Rwanda.

What occurred in Rwanda was nothing short of genocide on a massive and unimaginable scale. It is very difficult in this place to even talk about the numbers without asking, ‘Why wasn’t the Western world, the United Nations, able to do more than they did at the time?’ I, like I am sure some other members in this parliament, have seen the film Hotel Rwanda, released last year. It gives an understanding of not only the failing of policy at the time but also the atrocities that occurred. We in this place could not adequately understand how such atrocities could occur anywhere in the world—but they did. Troops in Rwanda on a peacekeeping mission were unable to exercise any force. They felt absolutely helpless; they were unable to help people whose lives were cut short because of the unnecessary slaughter that was going on at the time.

It was in late 1994 that we dispatched a field hospital and a rifle company of infantry troops to Rwanda. I recall talking to former Senator John Herron, who was a doctor himself. He is obviously no longer in the parliament but now our Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See. I remember talking to him about this some time after he returned. He went to Rwanda as a medical practitioner and spent some time there helping Rwandan people. His recall to me of some of the events just horrified me. He also said to me—and I am sure he would not mind me saying this; I am sure him talking about it has been documented somewhere—that when he came back there was to be counselling of all the people returning from Rwanda. He thought he would not need counselling. He went back into the Senate and was sitting one night in his parliamentary office when suddenly the horror of what he recalled seeing in Rwanda came back to him very visually and graphically. He said it was from that point on that he had a better understanding of the meaning of PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder. He was just a doctor there, but he saw some of the horror of the massacres and the people who were suffering from the absolutely horrendous wounds that had been inflicted upon them.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.