Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this motion and to associate myself with the comments of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. Australia provided the third biggest force amongst the allies in the Vietnam War, after of course the United States and South Vietnam itself. At its peak, we had 7,672 service people in Vietnam. In total, between 1962 and 1973, 59,000 Australians served in Vietnam—520 of these lost their lives and approximately 3,000 were wounded. There are approximately 50,000 of those 59,000 who are still with us today.

As has been said by others, the Vietnam War was different to other wars. It was different for a number of reasons. It was different because of the manner of fighting. It was different because ambush was a much more important tactic in the Vietnam War than perhaps in other wars that we have faced. It was different because the climate of war was different, because we were engaging in a guerrilla war against an enemy who knew their own country much better than we did. It was different because of the use of chemicals. Of course, chemicals were used in World War I, but it has been unusual to see them used in more recent conflagrations. Chemicals were used substantially in the Vietnam War—not necessarily with the intention of killing people but with that result.

It was also different because our veterans were not honoured in the way they should have been when they returned. Much has been said about that. It is true to say that even veterans say they do not need an apology. I agree that they do not need an apology; they are owed one. They are not owed one just by the people who opposed the Vietnam War. Nobody should apologise for opposing the Vietnam War. It was a point of view that people were entitled to have, and indeed many veterans of the Vietnam War now say that they view the war as not having been worth the effort or the sacrifice that was made by so many Australians and people from other nations. But people should apologise if they did not support our veterans or if they were involved in denigrating our veterans when they returned from Vietnam. As the honourable member for Cowan has said, that applies equally to people who supported the Vietnam War and people who opposed it.

But apologies are not enough. We need to give better support to our Vietnam veterans. An apology is hollow unless we back it up with action. Veterans in my community tell me they feel it is tougher to get a TPI pension, and in fact the government’s own figures back up this assertion. They show an eight per cent reduction in the number of total and permanent incapacity pensions over recent years. So, when our veteran community is getting older and presumably sicker and is in greater need of TPI pensions, we find an eight per cent reduction in the number of those pensions being granted. Of course, the TPI pension has decreased in value by $80 a fortnight since 1997 compared to other pensions, because of a change in the indexation method that was put into place for those pensions.

So, compared to other service pensions and compared to the age pension, veterans on the TPI pension are being disadvantaged—and they are people who should never be disadvantaged. They have made very great sacrifices for our nation. I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, as would others, that these people should not be disadvantaged; but they are being disadvantaged by $80 a fortnight. That is a significant figure. It is not something that should be trifled with and we need to be doing better.

Not only soldiers but also nurses, airmen and sailors served in Vietnam. I have a notice of motion in the House about the service of sailors in particular. We all know that the Vietnam veterans have a higher mortality rate than that of the general population, but perhaps what honourable members might not appreciate is that those who served in the Royal Australian Navy have the highest mortality rate. They have a higher mortality rate than those who served in the Army and the Air Force.

A 2002 report by the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology found that the method of providing drinking water to sailors on Royal Australian Navy ships in Vietnam made it likely that dioxins had contaminated the water—and there, perhaps, we have an explanation for that very high mortality rate amongst veterans of the Royal Australian Navy.

I am very privileged to have residing in my electorate a seaman from the HMAS Sydney—which transported many thousands of troops to Vietnam—Mr Jess James. He and others who live in and close to my electorate have raised this issue with me. I think it is incumbent on the government to do better when it comes to supporting those Royal Australian Navy veterans who are suffering ill health effects so many years later because the water provided to them to drink when they were in harbour in Vietnam was not adequately cleaned.

I would like to say a few words about the effect on the partners—in particular, the wives—of Vietnam veterans. In my electorate I have been very lucky to meet a number of partners of Vietnam veterans through the Nepean Vietnam veterans partners and widows support group—and a finer group of women you could never hope to meet. I was introduced to them by Judy Shepherd, and I have attended several of their meetings. Earlier this year, I took my honourable friend the member for Cowan to meet with them. He was very impressed with them, and they with him. They provide a valuable role in supporting each other through the trials of being a partner of a Vietnam veteran.

Vietnam veterans suffer increased mortality rates and increased rates of suicide and mental illness, and that of course has an effect on their partners. Health studies on Vietnam veterans have shown that their partners have been adversely affected. Two-thirds of partners of Vietnam veterans attending post-traumatic stress disorder clinics were found to be very severely distressed. This was recently reported by Professor Hedley Peach in the Australian Family Physician magazine.

We need to be doing better by their partners. We also need to be doing better by their children. To people who are not familiar with these issues, this may appear at first glance to be somewhat of a stretch. Why should the children of Vietnam veterans receive any government assistance or support? The case for it is very strong indeed. Out of 100 children of Vietnam veterans, between six and nine of them have been in a situation where both their parents—because of the impact on the partners, which I referred to—have suffered mental illness. During their childhood, they have had not just one parent but both parents suffering mental illness. That compares to one in 100 in the wider population.

Perhaps most disturbing is the suicide rate of children of Vietnam veterans: it is three times higher than that of the general population. You do not need to be a genius to work out why. Their fathers and mothers have suffered much distress because of their service to our country—for doing what our country and government asked them to do—and they are now paying a price.

I want to take this opportunity to call on the government to lift the age limit for those children of Vietnam veterans seeking assistance through the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. It is impossible at the moment to receive assistance from that service if you are over 36. Of course, many of the children of Vietnam veterans are now over 36, and they should not be cut off from that service just because they have passed some arbitrarily set limit which says: ‘Now you are 36, you are on your own. You are not entitled to suffer mental grief anymore. You are not entitled to be suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome or any of the associated traumas that go with that. You are now on your own.’ I do not think that is good enough. I call on the government and the minister—whose genuine interest and commitment to these issues I acknowledge and respect—to lift that age limit so that the children of Vietnam veterans are not placed on their own.

In the time available to me, I would like to say a few things about the Battle of Long Tan, the anniversary of which this chamber is considering today. Important battles are very significant in understanding Australian history, but they are also an inspiration to others facing adversity. Long Tan has joined Kokoda, Tobruk and Gallipoli as a great inspiration to all Australians who are facing difficult circumstances. Recently in my electorate I hosted a film night and tribute to the veterans of Kokoda. It was launched by General Peter Cosgrove, who accepted my invitation and the invitation of the member for Chifley to launch the event. Many people were moved by what they heard that night. I will soon be doing something similar with respect to the Battle of Tobruk. The Battle of Long Tan has a similar message: people who were massively outnumbered and who, on any objective analysis, could not have been expected to win that battle, showed courage and perseverance and—as the Vietnam veterans from the other side recently acknowledged—won that battle.

I want to refer briefly to the controversy about the awarding of medals for the Battle of Long Tan. I do not propose to go into the details; they have been well traversed in other places. I note that the Prime Minister said, in moving this motion, that it was difficult for the government to fix this matter—and I acknowledge that. I do acknowledge that this is a difficult matter and that it is very hard to retrospectively correct the injustices of the past. But because it is difficult is not a reason not to do anything. I urge the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to seriously examine the injustices that have been perpetrated by the wrongful denial of appropriate medals for gallantry to the veterans of Long Tan and to fix the situation. I think all Australians would join in celebrating such a decision. It may go against the military grain and it may go against the tradition of not awarding medals retrospectively, but I think it is justified in this case.

Finally, I want to make a brief mention of not only Australian veterans of the Vietnam War but also the South Vietnamese veterans of the Vietnam War, many of whom reside in my electorate and perhaps more of whom reside in the electorate of my honourable friend the member for Fowler. There are thousands of them living in south-western Sydney, and I have met many of them. They are predominantly men. They have great passion for their country and served their country gallantly. I am thinking in particular of Dr Tien Nguyen, the Federal President of the Vietnamese Community in Australia, who served alongside Australian soldiers and United States soldiers in the South Vietnamese Army and now resides in south-western Sydney. I am thinking also of two others whom I have had the great honour to meet: veterans of the South Vietnamese forces who, after the war, served many years in labour camps in Vietnam because of their commitment to democracy.

The best way that we can honour those veterans and all veterans of the Vietnam War is to do all in our power to ensure that democracy does come to Vietnam. Because of the result of the Vietnam War, Vietnam has been under an oppressive regime for the last 40 years. The best way that we can honour those veterans is to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain and democracy is returned to Vietnam at the earliest opportunity. I know many veterans—South Vietnamese veterans, Australian veterans and, I am sure, United States veterans and other allies—would support that call.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to pay tribute to the veterans of Long Tan, and also to pay tribute to all of the Australians who served in the Vietnam War. The commemorations that took place throughout the country on 18 August, including those in the south-west of Sydney, certainly stirred the emotions of those who were involved in the conflict, their families and those of us who recognised the efforts that they put in on behalf of a grateful nation.

As in all other theatres of conflict in which Australians have served, those Australians who bravely served in Vietnam served their nation with distinction and commitment. Having said that, the veterans of the Vietnam conflict were treated poorly on their return to this country. No matter what your views may be on the war in Vietnam, those who served this country, at this country’s behest, did not deserve the treatment they received when they returned to this country.

I would like to put on record my apologies to those veterans who were subjected to that treatment at that point in time. It is something that needs to be said, as grieving is still taking place amongst Vietnam veterans, and particularly, I know, amongst the veterans in my electorate of Werriwa. There is no excuse at all, and there never will be an excuse, for treating our returned servicemen and women in this manner. They dedicated themselves to the task at hand—the service of their country—and no matter what conflict it was, no matter how they were recruited to do so, they nevertheless discharged their duty with valour and honour, which would ordinarily be regarded as something very prominent in the Australian psyche.

In making these comments, I am reminded of the story of a local Vietnam veteran, Peter Millar. He is a former New South Wales police officer. In Mr Millar’s case, having served in Vietnam between 1968 and 1969, during which time he served for a period in Saigon, as a police officer in New South Wales he was not only entitled but would have been expected to wear the necessary service ribbon, in recognition of the honoured service that an officer has performed in a theatre of conflict. However, because of the hostility that he faced when he returned home, Mr Millar kept his service, quite frankly, to himself. Worst of all, he kept many of his experiences bottled up inside him as well. It is simply wrong that veterans like Mr Millar have been forced into this dilemma, feeling that they need to keep their service on behalf of their country secret and private. The bravery of those who served should never be questioned, and the treatment of many Vietnam veterans, received at the hands of the rest of the population, should never be allowed to occur again.

The Battle of Long Tan adds to and enhances the Anzac spirit that was established in Gallipoli. I would like to think that what the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Ken Moroney, had to say when he addressed the Campbelltown commemorative service on 18 August resonates with the rest of us. He said:

The name of Long Tan adds to those of Gallipoli, the Somme, Tobruk and Kokoda.

Long Tan was the first major engagement in Vietnam in which Australians were involved. That battle is the stuff that legends are made of and should be recognised as such. Once again, Australian soldiers found themselves in a position where only their sheer bravery and determination allowed them to battle against the odds.

It should be recalled that Delta Company, 6RAR, encountered a numerically superior force in the rain, the mud and the mist of that rubber plantation just outside the village of Long Tan. Who would reasonably have expected the results that occurred? I would suggest that no-one could have reasonably expected that a force of 108 Australians, mostly national servicemen, led by a few regular soldiers and artillery, could hold off a force comprising over 2,000 NVA and local Viet Cong. That is equivalent to almost two battalions.

As wave after wave of enemy attacked the Australian position during the few hours of this battle, there were many acts of bravery and the obvious aspects of mateship which have come to typify that Australian or, realistically, the Anzac spirit. For three hours they fought in the rain, with nothing more than the trees of the rubber plantation and the mist generated by the rain for cover, all the time waiting for reinforcements to arrive.

Sadly, lives on both sides were lost that day. By the end of the battle, 18 Australians had lost their lives, with another 24 having been wounded. It is interesting that the oldest Australian casualty was a 22-year-old and the youngest was a 19-year-old. To put it in the context of their own families certainly shoots back to me the stark reality of this conflict. On the other side I understand they lost somewhere in excess of 250, with another 500 wounded.

As I mentioned at the outset, despite the significance of the Battle of Long Tan, the commemoration of this battle is not simply about the battle itself; it is about all Vietnam veterans. It is about the nearly 500,000 who served in Vietnam. It is about the soldiers and about the families of more than 500 Australian troops who lost their lives in the service of this country, and it is about the 3,000 who were wounded during the conflict. As the member for Prospect reminded us, it is also about those who have returned carrying the scars of their time in the service of this country, and that is something that should never be lost. Everyone who served in the Vietnam conflict deserves our proper recognition and our full respect.

I would like to take the opportunity to recognise the veterans and the organisers of the commemoration ceremony that took place in Campbelltown on 18 August. It was an honour for me to attend and pay my respects along with hundreds of local residents in Mawson Park in Campbelltown. I would particularly like to pay tribute to Bob Roach, President of the Vietnam Veterans Association South Western Region sub-branch, and Ken Foster, and to everyone else involved in the organisation of the commemoration service.

I would like to recognise the attendance of many from the Vietnamese community as well, which is a very strong community in Campbelltown. Their attendance was very much in recognition of the contribution that Australian troops made in fighting for their country during that period. I was also pleased, quite frankly, to see so many of the younger generation turning up, so many from local schools. I know their presence was not lost on the veterans who marched on that day. While it is disappointing that it has taken so many years for such recognition, it was heartening to see that all Vietnam veterans can finally stand proud of their service, when once they could not.

We need always to be mindful of the fact that, even though the last of our troops left Vietnam in 1972, it was not until 3 October 1987 that Australia officially held ceremonies recognising the homecoming of Vietnam veterans. While I have never taken the position that political statements should be made when showing appreciation for the service of our troops, I cannot let this opportunity pass without making some comment on the reluctance of government to conduct an inquiry into the Long Tan bravery award fiasco.

When the Prime Minister rose in the House on 17 August, I personally hoped that he would take the opportunity to announce that, on 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, an inquiry would be conducted into the bravery awards of that period. Sadly, that did not occur. He said:

The difficulty faced by any government in reopening a particular set of recommendations, having regard to changes that might have been made on the original recommendations, is that as one sense of grievance might be addressed so many others are opened up.

Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable with regard to the issue at hand, and it is certainly unacceptable in addressing the injustices that have occurred. We cannot paper over this simply by saying that it is either too hard or that there may be other consequences. The argument that the issue should not be re-examined on the basis that it might cause other problems in the future or that it might be too hard to do in retrospect is simply, and should always be considered by this House to be, unacceptable. I stand proudly behind Labor’s longstanding policy and support an inquiry into the Long Tan bravery awards. This should be a bipartisan position. It is time that we right this wrong.

Vietnam veterans throughout the country continue to suffer and are haunted by the ghosts of their involvement in that war. Recently I met with a veteran who outlined to me how, as a direct result of his involvement in the war, he has suffered—how he lost his job and how he is still suffering from terrible psychological problems. He said to me that he had only just started to attend Anzac Day parades and other commemoration services but was continually perplexed that the positive statements about the bravery of our troops did not seem to be reflected in the support that our veterans receive. I deeply sympathise with him and with those like him who suffer.

Largely, the veterans and their families have been left to deal with the aftermath of the war with limited assistance. I commend the bravery, dedication and commitment of all our Vietnam veterans. I welcomed the opportunity to attend the commemoration service held in Campbelltown and the opportunity to meet and talk with so many Vietnam veterans and their families, basically to personally recognise their bravery and acknowledge their sacrifice. Commissioner Ken Moroney said in Campbelltown:

I recommend to a younger generation to take up the reading of this history ... to gain an understanding of who we are as a people.

It is an important part of Australian history and should be given such status. I hope that no group of Australian veterans is ever treated by Australians in the way that we treated our Vietnam veterans. We need to right that wrong.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 18 August 1966, a small but brave band of Australians went out on patrol from Nui Dat to find themselves caught in the middle of an ambush by an estimated force of 2½ thousand Viet Cong and regular Vietnamese soldiers. That Australian force numbered barely 100 and, in the dire fighting and hours that followed, 18 Australians lost their lives. It was estimated at the end of the fighting the next day that somewhere in the order of 245 Vietnamese had died in that battle, with a number of other wounded having been taken from the battlefield.

The valour displayed by those Australian soldiers was truly in the highest traditions of Australian service personnel. In the face of overwhelming odds, numerically about 100 facing 2½ thousand, that they could maintain their order and their focus, stand their ground and survive, is a truly remarkable thing. It should be recorded that they had wonderful support from the New Zealand artillery battery, who very accurately brought fire to the positions that were called in, which were literally on top of the Australian soldiers in what was very close combat.

It was a great honour for me 10 years ago to attend the 30th anniversary commemorations of the Battle of Long Tan at the Enoggera Army Barracks in my electorate, which is the home of 6RAR, the unit involved. I was again humbled to attend the 40th anniversary services that were conducted about a fortnight ago on the day following the resolution moved in this parliament by the Prime Minister. To see those veterans, a few of whom I have come to know in the 10 years in between, is always a good thing. They are wonderful Australians. When their nation called them to duty, irrespective of what their views may have been about the conflict, they answered the call and performed as extremely capable professional soldiers, and did us all proud.

Therefore, it really does sadden me to see that here we are, on the 40th anniversary, still unable as a parliament to properly ensure that the awards for those involved in that battle are recognised. Some people do not know the history of this issue of medals for the Battle of Long Tan. It was a matter of surprise to those involved in the Battle of Long Tan that the awards that were given were of a lower level than that recommended by the commander in the battle, Harry Smith. I have spoken to Harry, and he and I have exchanged a number of emails over the years. It was not until 1996 that the reasons for that became clear. The year 1996 is important in this matter not because that is when the Howard government was elected but rather because it was the 30th anniversary of the battle, and the 30-year rule on the disclosure of documents enabled previously secret documents to be made public.

For the first time, at the end of 1996 the veterans of the Battle of Long Tan were able to see the documents and to find out why it was that the awards that were meant to be given, that were recommended by the commander in the battle, were never given. They were able to find out why it was that higher awards were given to senior officers who did not fire a shot in the battle and who arrived in one case—in fact, certainly in one case and I think in both cases—at the end of the column of armoured vehicles that brought the relief. Those people who did not fire a shot in anger nor had one shot fired at them managed to receive the highest awards for that battle. The soldiers who stood in the mud and the rain as their comrades fought for their lives and as they fought for their own lives, and who were the heroes of that encounter, found themselves receiving lesser awards. After the 30-year rule allowed these documents to be seen, they discovered that in fact the recommendations of the battlefield commander were never pursued. An alternative document was created recommending lesser awards for those in the battle. Those lesser awards in one case included a mention in dispatches, which is a totally honourable award for someone to receive.

The thing that has stuck in the craw of many of these veterans, and I have to say in mine as well, is that in exactly the same list of awards in which those Long Tan medals were listed, the postal clerk in Vung Tau got a mention in dispatches as well. I am sure he did a good job but to suggest that he should receive the same medal, the same award, that one of the heroes of the Battle of Long Tan received beggars belief.

This saga has been going on for 10 years. I had a look at some of the occasions on which I have raised this matter. I raised it in a question without notice to then Minister Bronwyn Bishop in April 1998; I raised it in a detailed question to the next minister in December 1999; I spoke about it in debates in this parliament in November 2003, March 2004, December 2004 and May 2005. I have asked further questions about it. I again made a speech referring to it on 15 June. And I am standing here again doing the same thing.

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary, when the government decided—and I think very rightly—to have a formal reception here, I thought now would be the time to address these matters, that finally some justice would prevail for those brave souls and they would get the recognition that in fact was recommended but had been denied them. When the Prime Minister started to talk about the medals, I thought: ‘Good. I’ll be the first to hop up and congratulate the government on doing the right thing, as somebody who has stood in this place on many occasions to chastise and criticise them for doing the wrong thing.’ But it did not happen. Not only did it not happen but the Prime Minister, in my view, rubbed salt into the wound. His comments were grossly offensive. At the end of the Prime Minister’s remarks he said:

... I would like to frankly explain to the House the difficulty of opening up in the manner requested this particular set of recommendations—

I thought, ‘Okay, let’s hear the reason.’ No reason followed. This is what the Prime Minister said next:

without also legitimately opening up others, indeed in relation to battles stretching back to World War II and in respect of relatives from battles stretching back to World War I ...

So the Prime Minister’s reason for not doing the right thing, for not doing what everybody who has looked at this over the last 10 years—since the documents were available to be seen—knows should be done, was to say that because there might be an injustice from World War II or even World War I, heaven forbid, we might have to fix two problems and not one. The thing in all of this that absolutely astounds and offends me is that this nation under a coalition government—the Prime Minister’s government was in office at the time—thought it was a good thing to send troops off to this battle but not to treat them decently afterwards.

You have a situation now where these people have been denied justice for 40 years. For the last 10 years they have known why they were denied justice, and the Prime Minister’s answer is, ‘We can’t give them justice because it will set a precedent.’ You know what, Prime Minister? These veterans are not asking you or this parliament to do the things this parliament asked them to do. As members of parliament we do not have to put our lives at risk. We do not have to stand in harm’s way. We do not have to take a bullet or see our lifelong friends die in front of us. We do not have to spend years away from our families in the mud and the rain in a war in South Vietnam which we may or may not have thought was a good idea. They do not want you, Minister and Prime Minister, to do the things that they had to do; all they want is for you to just have the guts to stand up and do the right thing.

Do you know what the government’s response was as recently as two weeks ago? They said that it was too hard because it might set a precedent and maybe someone who fought in World War I or World War II has the same problem. If there is someone from World War II or World War I who suffered the same injustice, fix it, too. Do not hide behind some bureaucratic mumbo jumbo and pretend that precedent somehow prevents this parliament from righting a wrong.

How hypocritical of the government to welcome those veterans here, to laud the work of those 100 who stood in the Battle of Long Tan, and then squib out of it and not have the guts to say, ‘We’re going to fix the problem with your medals.’ You could have at least set up an inquiry. If the minister, the government and the Prime Minister are not willing to take the decision now—and I think they should; in my opinion there is enough evidence already—at least set up an inquiry and let someone else look at it.

I mentioned a series of questions I have asked and speeches I have made about this for some years. In 1999 I asked a series of detailed questions, the last of which was to the minister at the time:

What action will he take to ensure that Lt Col. Smith’s original recommendations for Military Cross awards to be given to his Platoon Commanders is now acted on.

The minister’s response in writing was: ‘None.’ That was the response from the minister then; that is the response now, except they have also been given a few mealy-mouthed words. As parliamentarians we do not have to do the same courageous things that those soldiers did for us but we should at least have the decency to make sure that they are acknowledged for what they did.

No-one between 1966 and the disclosure of these documents in 1996, bar the handful involved in the activity, could have known what transpired. So this is not a business of laying blame on someone in 1966 or anywhere between then and 1996. Indeed, I am willing to give the government a year or two years grace to look through the stuff after they became aware of the problems in 1996. But that was 10 years ago. In 1999 the official response to my question, ‘What are you going to do to fix it?’ from the minister of the day was, ‘Nothing.’

That is what has been happening for the last 10 years. It is not good enough. It is an enormous affront for anybody who has a shred of decency or even moral consistency to stand in the Great Hall and applaud and welcome the veterans, as we did, and not to turn around and, with strong commitment and vigour, defend their right to receive awards which should have been provided by the government 40 years ago but were not. Let us put the past in the past and recognise the wrong.

I hope that out of this 40th anniversary a couple of things happen. I do hope all Australians understand that, whenever a conflict occurs, whether we think as a matter of politics and policy that it is right or wrong for Australia to deploy its troops to that theatre of war—whatever the politics and policy may be—we all must commit to supporting our troops to ensure their safety and return as soon as possible. I hope that reflection on what happened in Vietnam becomes ingrained in our minds, because what happened to the Vietnam veterans is a blight on our history. They were not treated with the respect they deserved when they returned.

I hope the other thing that comes out of it, particularly now, when the Battle of Long Tan really does come to mind as one of the major recent battles that Australian troops have been involved in, is that the troops who served under Harry Smith in that battle get the awards that they were recommended for. It can be done, and the only thing standing in the way is the will of this government.

It is time to put an end to the mealy-mouthed comments that we have heard for 10 years. It is now time to have the guts to do that. As I said earlier, we are not being asked to put our lives on the line as those soldiers were. We have the easy job. We just have to do what we know is right—put our hand up and vote for something that we know is right. That is what the government should do, and until they do it I intend to continue to pursue it as vigorously as I possibly can.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Brisbane for his speech. I am going to touch on many of those issues in my contribution as well. Last month we had the honour of commemorating here in Canberra, and I in Ballarat, the services of some of Australia’s finest defence personnel—our Vietnam veterans. In honouring their contribution to our community today, I want to quote fairly extensively from a speech given by Bill Wallace at the commemorations in Ballarat. I think it is one of the best speeches I have heard from a Vietnam veteran about their experiences of the war. Bill says of the war:

For the first time in Australian History a war was lost. There was no return of conquering heroes to a grateful nation. The attempt to prop up the corrupt military dictatorship in South Vietnam failed and the reunification of Vietnam under the North Vietnamese Government is now a permanent fixture. Australia fought this war with limited political aims, mainly to convince the United States that we were a true and valuable ally, and that the US should fill the vacuum created in SE Asia by the British decision to withdraw to Europe. It could be argued that this also has failed and that Australia is still pursuing a foreign policy to achieve these objectives.

Bill goes on:

It is now beyond dispute that the intelligence advice to the government before the decision to deploy combat troops was taken, was that the war was not winnable. Yet the decision was taken which cost the lives of 501 young Australians.

As the ADF knew this, the motivation for the soldiers deployed to Vietnam was based purely on mateship, pride and professionalism. When they returned, none of this was recognised.

The soldiers felt betrayed by the nation and because of this, they buried themselves back into the community. But the recognition that was given to the men after World War II was not afforded to them. Allowances were not made for the effects of war on these young men.

Bill says:

I remember when I was a boy that a man’s shortcomings would be tolerated because he was a ‘Returned Man’. This did not happen in Australia in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Happily, it is now being done, but for a great many, the damage is irreparable.

Over 50,000 Australians were involved in the Vietnam War. More than 500 died and about 3,000 were wounded. For the veterans who returned, the scars run deep and will for many never truly heal, nor for their families. In Kim Beazley’s speech, he read a letter from the member for Cowan where he stated:

Today is a day when our federal parliament should honour our Vietnam veterans, recognise their service and say to them that they did a good job in the best tradition of the ANZACs.

With this year marking the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, I want to talk about one of the men who was in this battle, Bill ‘Yank’ Akell, someone from my constituency but also someone whom I count as a very close friend. In doing so, I also want to acknowledge the Vietnam veterans of other battles that were waged as part of that war and the many support and medical personnel without whom our casualties would have been so much higher.

Bill Akell is one of those veterans that encapsulates the very best of the Anzac tradition. He joined up in the Army at the age of 18 on 14 May 1964. He was a member of Delta Company, 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, and he arrived in Vietnam for his first tour of duty in 1966. Bill, at a mere 20 years of age, alongside 108 other young Australians, was involved in the Battle of Long Tan. Many words have been spoken about the battle and the role it played in determining the tactics of the North Vietnamese for the rest of the war. But the voices of the individual soldiers who were at Long Tan and the many other battles of Vietnam are really only now being heard and only now is any interest shown in their stories.

The History Channel documentary on Long Tan, I am reliably informed by Bill, is a pretty accurate description of what it was actually like. He watched that documentary with his family and said that he had many a tear in his eye as he shared those experiences for the first time in 40 years with his family. I have had the privilege to work with many Vietnam veterans in my time as member for Ballarat. All have been amazingly generous in telling me their stories but also in making sure that the outstanding issues for Vietnam veterans are placed fairly and squarely on the public agenda. I want to touch on three of these issues.

Bill Akell first drew my attention to the outstanding issue of medals in relation to the Battle of Long Tan. The bravery, courage and pure guts of Delta Company prompted the then South Vietnamese government to award those who took part with a unit citation and also to single out 20 individual soldiers who would receive various levels of the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Mr Akell was one of those soldiers. Yet, due to the intervention of the Australian ambassador, the citation and medals were not awarded. Forty years on, successive governments have failed to recognise these men and their families. Whilst the issue of the South Vietnamese medal has now been resolved, the issue of the unit citation has not.

The broader issue of Australian bravery awards has also not been resolved. The 40th anniversary of Long Tan presented the ideal time for the government to announce the terms of an inquiry into the unfairness of bravery awards following the Battle of Long Tan. The Battle of Long Tan was the most significant battle during Australia’s long involvement in the Vietnam War. It also led to the most controversial and yet unresolved issue of the bravery awards. After the battle, Harry Smith, who commanded the battle on the ground from the start, had his bravery award downgraded, as did Platoon Commanders Sabben and Kendall. Other recommendations for bravery awards made by Smith were simply ignored or amended without further reference to him. The Australian gallantry and distinguished service Vietnam publication in 1974 noted:

It would appear the system of rationing awards (in Vietnam) resulted in those furtherest from the actual combat being the first to claim awards.

If the government were genuine in its welcome of these veterans in Canberra to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the battle, it should have honoured their presence and announced an independent inquiry to examine the fairness of the bravery awards following the Battle of Long Tan.

The second outstanding issue for many Vietnam veterans is the issue of a health study into Vietnam veterans’ children. Geoff and Sue Parker, from my electorate, have been leading the way on this issue and again have made sure that I understand the impact that the Vietnam veterans’ service has had on their children. The scope and methodology for the study has been sitting on the minister’s desk for some time now, and I note an article by Hedley Peach in the Australian Family Physician this month that again highlights the serious health issues facing Vietnam veterans and their dependants as a result of their service.

The government has raised the expectations of the veteran community on this study, and the delay is simply unacceptable. The minister now needs to either announce the study or stop stringing the veteran community along and tell them that he does not have the money or cannot get support for it. It is unfair to veterans who have worked cooperatively with this government on the scope of the study and on this broader issue to keep stringing them along.

The third issue is T&PI Vietnam veterans. Many in my electorate are angry about the erosion of their pension. Veterans such as Bill Dobell, John Hevey, Charlie Mackenzie and Bill Wallace and many others have been tireless in raising this issue. Again I want to draw on the words of Bill Wallace. He said:

Vietnam Veterans feel betrayed. In 1969 when I was placing my life on the line for this nation, the special rate of pension paid to permanently incapacitated servicemen was 90 per cent of average weekly earnings. TPIs did not receive welfare. The neglect of all governments since, which has been accepted by the electorate, has resulted in those people now being welfare dependent. When the automatic adjustments are made next month, for the first time welfare will constitute more than 50 per cent of the income of most TPIs, and the special rate of pension will be about 40 per cent of the average weekly earnings. Of the 40,000 Vietnam Veterans still alive (5,000 have taken their own lives—10 times as many who died during the conflict), 18,000 are now classed as Totally and Permanently Incapacitated ... I return to my earlier comment that Veteran entitlements should be appropriate, not just adequate.

These are just three of the issues outstanding for Vietnam veterans that the government absolutely must address. Again in the words of Bill Wallace:

But why do we remember these veterans? What is so special about being a Veteran? The answer quite simply is that these are the only servants of the Australian Nation who have had to be prepared to die to implement national policy. No others are required to make this commitment. When undertaking this service to the nation, these men and women are deprived of any of the personal rights which properly protect our freedom and democracy. When you don a uniform, you lose the right to refuse a lawful command at every level from the CDF to the lowest recruit. If the Government says that is what is required, the defence force has no alternative but to say “Yes Sir”. This is why the nation does not have occasions such as this to remember the service of government employees who work in the ATO or in the Diplomatic Service. Only Veterans have been required by the Australian Nation to make this ultimate commitment. Only Veterans have been required to be prepared to die in the service of the nation.

This is why Vietnam Veterans are “special”. Mainly for reasons we would rather have ignored or wish had not occurred at all. Whilst there are 40,000 of us still alive, the nation has a chance to make amends, not merely by public expressions of sorrow and gratitude, not by glittering dinners and ceremonies at the fine memorials which have been built, but by changing the things which affect the everyday lives of veterans.

The 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan was a missed opportunity to rectify some of these wrongs for the Vietnam veteran community.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.