Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—On behalf of the member for Kennedy, I move:

That this House resolves to accept the principle that the primary qualifying criteria for the Australian Defence Medal specify two years effective service, instead of six years, in line with the recommendation of the Returned and Services League of Australia.

I have moved this motion on behalf of the member for Kennedy, the much revered member of this House the Hon. Bob Katter MP, who is unable to attend today as he is attending to matters in his electorate, which bore the brunt of Cyclone Larry. I am sure the House joins me in wishing him and his constituents a speedy return to their lives. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.

The member for Kennedy’s motion is based on a motion that has been on the RSL’s books since September 1999 calling on the federal government to institute a new award for service in the Australian Defence Force to be called the Australian Defence Medal, with the following conditions for the granting of the award: (a) service in the Australian Defence Force in any category after World War II and (b) completion of a minimum qualifying period of two years full-time elective service or part-time equivalent service or (c) completion of any lesser period for which he or she was engaged to serve, (d) being discharged medically unfit for further service prior to the completion of a period of two years service or its part-time equivalent due to injury, disease or death which occurred as a result of service or whilst on duty and (e) having gained an honourable discharge.

Whilst the ADF medal was announced by the government in 2004, conditions for eligibility have still not been finalised. This motion calls on the government to finalise the criteria for this medal accepting two years effective service so that those great Australians who have hitherto gone unrecognised for their efforts for our country can be duly recognised. The motion by the member for Kennedy is supported by the RSL, and I will add a couple of comments from other individuals who also support the two years of effective service as the criterion. Dave Morgan, a Vietnam veteran said:

There were thousands of dedicated servicemen and servicewomen doing their bit for this country back home to support the war in Vietnam with less than six years service. Many never left the country and have NO service medal, even though they were essential back up for us.

Mrs Shirley McLaren said:

Ex-Servicewomen from the Women’s Royal Australian Navy Service, Women’s Royal Australian Armed Corps and Women’s Royal Australian Air Force who completed their four year enlistment under Defence Force and Enlistment Policies of the time between 1951 and 1977 have also been denied the Australian Defence Medal.

These people are not current serving personnel but are servicewomen who served 55 years ago and have never been recognised as having served their nation. Also in her contribution to the debate, Mrs McLaren said—and I think this encapsulates why we should accept the two-year criterion:

Let us remember all who were called by their Nation to serve Australia with pride and dedication. Each one is part of our heritage and remember them all.

In conclusion, this leads me to ask for support within this House for the criteria that the member for Kennedy has outlined.

In the few moments left to me, I would like to raise another issue that is ancillary to this issue—that is, forgotten veterans of World War II who are currently fighting for recognition for access to the veterans’ gold card. Mr Ken Coultan, a constituent of mine in his 90s, is not well and in hospital but still fighting for the recognition for what he and other forgotten veteran mates should have access to to assist them with their health care in their twilight years.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) 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

Given the circumstances of the member for Kennedy, I am happy to second the motion.

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

I rise this evening to speak about the private member’s motion relating to the primary qualifying criteria for Defence Force personnel to be eligible for the Australian Defence Medal. Presently, to be eligible for the medal, a serviceman or woman must have six years of continuous service. This motion is set to change this requirement to only two years in line with recommendations from the national body representing ex-service men and women, the Returned and Services League of Australia.

I would like to put on the record that I support this motion. Australia’s service personnel make a dedicated and strong commitment to the security of our nation. Whether it is service for six years or for two years is irrelevant to the contribution that these young everyday Australians make to our country. Our Defence Force members deserve recognition. This medal is one way of showing the appreciation not only of the members of this House but of all Australians whose rights and values they are prepared to defend.

The medal itself recognises the significant commitment and contribution that our service personnel have made both in overseas operations and in support roles while on deployment in Australia. Regular and reserve service is recognised and the medal can be backdated for service from the end of World War II on 3 September 1945. Many service personnel do not make the 15-year qualifying period for a long service medal. However, during their time serving Australia, they have made a significant contribution, which should and must be recognised.

Many roles in the military are performed in the background prior to operational service, such as preparation, planning and intelligence tasks. The men and women of the Australian Defence Force who undertake these support roles remain in Australia supporting overseas operations both prior to official deployment and while troops are on active duty. All roles in the Army, Air Force and Navy work together for a single outcome—to protect Australia and our interests. Without the support of each of these men and women in the jobs within each of the three services, people on overseas operations would not succeed. There are no specific medals for these essential roles and this medal will surely fill that gap.

I have received many phone calls and letters from the RSL sub-branches in my electorate who disagree with the six-year qualifying criteria. The single argument for reducing the six-year criteria is that most service personnel are fully deployable inside of six years; in fact, many are fully deployable within one year. For example, a soldier joining the infantry or an armoured corps undertakes 45-day basic initial training at Kapooka, which is followed by 12 weeks on a course for their respective job in the Defence Force. Furthermore, soldiers are training and updating their skills continually. New technology and equipment means retraining. This all indicates that there will never be an appropriate time frame within which one will complete training. Soldiers are always training and refining their skills; hence, the current six-year criterion makes no sense and it should be changed to two years.

It is a fact that Australia’s Defence Force is one of the best equipped and skilled in the world. The Australian government provides state-of-the-art equipment, superb training facilities and instructors and excellent working conditions, entitlements and access to medical services. However, it is fitting also that these hardworking soldiers and officers be provided with a medal that recognises the efforts and personal sacrifices they make for our country. There is nothing more rewarding for a member of the Defence Force than to be honoured with a medal. Their service is unique and it is fitting that the enlistment eligibility of six years be lowered to two years.

I am certain that every Australian values the dedication of our service men and women and the critical role they play in defending Australia, our security and our interests. This medal is a small way of saying thank you and, as such, I commend this motion to the House.

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

It is evident that this government has made a mess of Australia’s military medals’ policy. Firstly, we saw the introduction of a national service medal, which this government designated a commemorative medal. National servicemen who have lobbied long and hard for recognition are far from happy with this situation and have mounted a strong campaign to be eligible for the yet to be released Defence medal; consequently, they want the criteria for this Defence medal to be two years. In support of this claim, they often cite an RSL resolution, which was moved some years ago, that called for the criteria for such a medal to be two years. Senior members of the RSL tell me that this criterion was put in place prior to the announcement of the nasho medal to ensure that the two-year nashos would not be left out should an ADF medal eventuate. Many argue that national servicemen have now been recognised and that the proposed Defence medal should be to recognise voluntary service within the ADF. This government, despite announcing that the new medal is to recognise voluntary service within the ADF, has not come up with the medal within the promised time and it has also failed to finalise and announce its criteria for this medal.

In 2004, the then minister, Mal Brough, put out a press release, which stated:

The Howard Government has today announced the intention to establish a new medal that recognises volunteer service in the Australian Defence Force.

I want to know whether the member for Maranoa, the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, has today announced a new policy. You would not know, because this government has cut and run on our members of the ADFR. It announced a policy for a new Defence medal before the last election and ever since has gone missing in action. It has refused to tell members of the ADF community what the criteria for that medal is—whether it is still the six years announced by then Minister Brough or whether that criteria has changed. At the same time he put out this release, the minister said:

... the Government was on track to call for applications by eligible serving and ex-service men and women by the end of the year.

That was in 2004. Where is this medal and why has this government turned its back on our members of the ADF? Why did it have one policy before the election and then go cold and missing in action after the election?

I call on the government to stop playing politics with our members of the ADF and to tell the Defence community what the situation is. I have some specific questions I want the government to answer. Will the government meet its commitment and strike a Defence medal? When will this delayed medal be available? What will be the criteria for this medal? Will the government recognise those women who signed up for four years? Certainly the ALP will. Will the government recognise those members of the ADF who were forced to take discharge, therefore not completing their term of service, due to being injured or wounded on duty? Certainly the ALP will. Will this government recognise those women who were forced to take discharge short of completing their term of service because of marriage or pregnancy? Certainly the ALP will. Will the government recognise those members of the ADF who signed up for three years and completed their term of enlistment? Certainly the ALP will. Will the government recognise those members of the ADF whose term of voluntary enlistment immediately post World War II was two years? Certainly, once again, the ALP will.

These matters have been dealt with in ALP policy, and they came about after long consultation with the defence community. Our shadow minister for defence, Robert McClelland, has also said that he now wants us to have another look, to make sure that the two-year argument has been properly addressed and is properly reflected in our policy, and to make sure that our policy covers all in the ADF who should be recognised. This is currently being done. As I said, I call on this government to get its act together and to honour its commitment to members of the ADF.

In June 2004, prior to the last election, the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mal Brough, put out a press release. He said that the government was introducing a volunteer medal, the criterion would be six years service and the medal would be ready by the middle of last year. We have heard nothing since. This government has cut and run on its responsibilities to members of the ADF, both current and past. It has gone missing in action at a time when members of the ADF community are looking to find out what the criteria are and when the promised medal will be available. (Time expired)

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the parliament today and I put on the record as the federal member for Ryan that I do support this motion by my colleague Mr Katter, the member for Kennedy, on the Australian Defence Medal. I also thank my colleague in the parliament the member for New England, Mr Windsor, for his very elegant representation of Mr Katter, who is not able to be here in the parliament today because of the cyclone that has devastated parts of Queensland and of course his own electorate. I say again on the record that I do support the thrust of this motion:

… that the primary qualifying criteria for the Australian Defence Medal specify two years effective service, instead of six years, in line with the recommendation of the Returned and Services League of Australia.

I have had the opportunity of speaking to various senior members of the RSL sub-branches in the Ryan electorate and to many returned veterans who are not themselves members of RSL sub-branches, and the overwhelming view is that they are very supportive of this criterion being reduced from six years to two years.

I also want to call upon the Howard government to expedite and finalise the criterion, because this is an important issue to many of our fellow Australians who fall within the ambit of this motion. It is certainly very important to a good number of my constituents in the Ryan electorate. Those who are eligible want to know that they are eligible, and I think they deserve our fullest support and cooperation in the finalisation of this policy. No veteran should be forgotten by this country and no serving personnel of the Australian Defence Force should be forgotten either.

Some 900,000 new medal entitlements have been created since the Howard government was elected in 1996, through the introduction of 11 new medals. The Howard government can stand very tall and be very proud of its record on recognising the service of our fighting men and women. We have troops around the world. We are particularly active in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and our troops are doing good work—important work. As the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr Tony Blair, said today in his historic address to this parliament, Australian and British forces together are doing work that is important for the protection of the values and the freedoms that both countries hold very dear.

As my colleagues have said, in June 2004 the government announced the establishment of the Australian Defence Medal for six years service since World War II in either the regular or the reserve arm of the Australian Defence Force. This medal recognises the significant commitment and contribution that our service men and women have made, whether they have served our country on overseas operations or remained in Australia in a very supportive role in uniform. The medal may be awarded posthumously to those who died in service and may also be awarded to those who were permanently injured and therefore unable to reach the prescribed qualifying period.

At the time this medal of recognition was announced in 2004, it was estimated some 400,000 personnel would be eligible for it. I support very much the comment of the RSL National President, Major-General Bill Crews, in June 2004 when he very strongly congratulated the government for ‘taking this most significant step in advancing personal recognition of the efforts of our defence forces’. He also said:

While the League had suggested that the minimum period for eligibility be two years, service for a period of six years is appropriate, recognising the need for servicemen and women to complete what can be prolonged periods of training to be operationally deployable. Further, it maintains the integrity of the awards system …

Six years is not something that is absolutely inappropriate; these are questions of judgment. But I think, given that the overwhelming view of those who are eligible for this medal is that the qualifying service criterion should be two years and given the important recognition by this parliament that it should be very special to receive this medal, I do personally support the criterion being reduced from six years to two years.

As I said, many in my constituency of Ryan are very supportive of this position. They have asked me to speak on their behalf, and as the federal member for Ryan I do so very strongly. I put on the record again my call on the government and on the new minister to expedite this matter. It is quite inappropriate that something like this should take two years, and I am happy to be quoted on that as a member of the party in government. (Time expired)

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

I welcome the opportunity to add my thoughts and comments to the member for Kennedy’s motion relating to the Australian Defence Medal. As we approach the 91st anniversary of the landings at Anzac Cove on 25 April, it is timely that we take this opportunity to remember with pride and honour those men and women who have served in our armed forces throughout our history. I know that many citizens in my electorate of Swan served in the Second World War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War and in the Gulf War since then. Many have also been involved in Australia’s peacekeeping forces in many parts of the world, including Rwanda, East Timor and the Middle East.

Today it is particularly important that we echo the comments made in this place today by the British Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, our own Prime Minister and our Leader of the Opposition that, no matter what our views of the present conflict in Iraq, our total and unequivocal support be given to our troops and those of the US, the UK and other coalition forces serving in Iraq.

I was privileged to join other members and senators last October in visiting our service men and women in Iraq. I can assure the House that they are meeting the difficult challenges of their service with effectiveness and vigour and that we can be proud of each and every one of them. Indeed, I have been lucky enough to participate in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program and I am a member of the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. In these capacities I have taken as many opportunities as possible to meet with members of our defence forces on-site at their facilities and to participate in some of their training exercises. If ever I were in a vulnerable or precarious situation, these are the people I would want to have standing next to me.

Towards the end of next month, I will look forward to the active commemorations for Anzac Day held by the Returned Servicemen’s Leagues across Australia and in my electorate to commemorate the service and sacrifice of our service men and women. I note the efforts of the member for Cowan on behalf of all Australian veterans to promote their interests and to protect the record of their selfless service to us all.

The federal Labor Party has long supported the striking of an Australian Defence Medal to recognise those Australians who have served as members of the regular or reserve forces since World War II. There is a clear acknowledgment on both sides of this chamber of the debt we owe to the men and women who served—and continue to serve—to protect our nation’s freedom and values. While we are all keen to ensure a degree of bipartisanship when dealing with matters relating to our service men and women, the point needs to be made that the government’s delay in formally announcing the qualifications for the Australian Defence Medal is unacceptable. It is, to my mind, coming perilously close to turning the entire exercise into one of those cynical ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time’ election ploys.

The concept of the medal was announced almost two years ago by the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. At the time, Minister Brough announced the medal would, quite rightly, recognise individuals who have made a contribution to our national interest either in operations or on the home front in a support role. He correctly acknowledged that the rise in terrorism had ‘redefined the notions of a frontline or even an easily definable area of operations’ and that many tasks undertaken by Defence personnel ‘remained invisible to the community at large’. The Australian Defence Medal, he said, would also recognise these circumstances of service. How unfortunate it is that Anzac Day 2005 went by, and now Anzac Day 2006 will slip by, without thousands of ex-service men and women, and current Defence Force personnel, being given the opportunity to wear their medals when they march with their comrades.

Now I turn to the issue of qualifying periods. The government’s stipulation that there should be a six-year service requirement before eligibility for the Australian Defence Medal is unacceptable. Those who served as national conscripts are rightly recognised for the National Service Medal after two years service. It is clear that the service requirement for the Australian Defence Medal should not be six years but rather, in general, less, as explained by the member for Cowan. There are those, for example, who voluntarily enlisted for two years service after the Second World War and who should be eligible for the Australian Defence Force Medal after two years, given that was the time of their service. In my view, two years as a general qualifying period seems to be fair, equitable and sensible.

It is always difficult to set qualifying periods for such recognition. On this issue I know that the member for Cowan, the member for Bruce and the member for Barton are currently reviewing the Australian Labor Party’s specific position to ensure that the qualifying period set is the most appropriate and fair. This review process sensibly involves further discussions with the RSL and other Defence Force personnel representative bodies. I applaud the initiative of the member for Kennedy in proposing this motion and urge the federal government to stop sitting on its hands and to move as a matter of urgency to address this important matter for Defence Force personnel and their families. Members opposite say they support this motion. Actions speak louder than words. I urge them to get off their backsides and urge the minister to do something about this matter urgently. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to members opposite, I rise to support this motion. In 1998, ex-service associations called for recognition of voluntary service in the Australian Defence Force. Australia has a terrific awards system that recognises valour, campaigns and long service. These awards are well established and well recognised as having great significance, but they do not recognise voluntary service within Australia for periods less than the long service provisions—currently 15 years. The creation of the Australian Defence Medal was a measure designed to address this gap without devaluing the criteria for any existing award. Widespread consultation resulted in the support of ex-service groups, including the RSL, for this award.

However, as a significant stakeholder, the ADF was also consulted. This consultation resulted in feedback from CDF which had two significant changes. Firstly, there was a contextual statement, as follows:

The six-year eligibility criterion was chosen to recognise the changing nature of ADF service. It is a medal for contemporary times, recognising a commitment to the nation that has been demonstrated through service over and above initial enlistment periods.

The other change was a consequential increase in the minimum qualifying period from two to six years. I contend that this substantially changes the nature of the Australian Defence Medal from that which was requested—that is, a recognition of service during the period 1946 to 2005. The request was not intended to cover long service, operational service or valiant service but was for recognition of the fact that a person had made a commitment to serve their nation and to be available for the full range of tasks to which the government of the day might wish to commit them.

The ADF position that contemporary service requires a minimum period of six years to be recognised is contested by many and, I would argue, justifiably so. It may well be that this is implemented for future service men and women. Whilst I would not support that, I recognise that at least they will know where that threshold is set and can make decisions about their career based on that. For those who have been discharged before this date, the implementation of the ADM with a six-year criterion I believe is profoundly unjust. For those people, where their service was honourable and effective, there is no option for them to extend to meet that six-year criterion. So we have a situation where the draft criteria for this award do not reflect the original request of the ex-service community and it excludes many ex-service men and women who voluntarily served their country on a full-time basis in accordance with the defence requirements of the day.

The current requirements are for six years but they have some caveats such as those who have honourably served but have been discharged due to policies of the time—for example, a woman who was pregnant or people who have been severely disabled or who have died in the course of duty. I would argue that we should also be recognising those people who have served and been honourably discharged in accordance with the mores of the day. For example, women in the Women’s Royal Australian Navy were enlisted to serve for four years and, in light of the contemporary policy of their day, this was considered a reasonable and satisfactory time to offer effective service. By limiting the award with this caveat of six years it means that these people who voluntarily served their country with honour—and often with distinction— get no recognition for that service. I believe that is profoundly unjust and must be addressed.

Established leadership and management theory recognises the value of celebrating the contribution of staff at all levels. If the ADF wishes to attract and retain people into the future, it needs to be prepared to recognise and celebrate the voluntary service that meets the expectations of the service of that day. On Anzac Day, medals are a tangible symbol which identify somebody as having been an ex-serviceman, and are highly prized. By denying those who are not deployed overseas recognition on such occasions, we are disenfranchising them and devaluing the contribution of people without whom those who served overseas could not have achieved their mission. I call on the government to expedite the conclusion of this issue to make sure that we recognise those service men and women who have volunteered and served their country with distinction. (Time expired).

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.