Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

notes:

(a)

the vital role that ADF personnel played in enforcing the Armistice for the Korean War, between 28 July 1953 and 19 April 1956;

(b)

the professionalism and courage displayed by those personnel in dangerous circumstances, promoting the furtherance of Australia’s national interest;

(c)

the findings of the Post-Armistice Korean Service Review (the Review), which stated under Recommendations 7B and 7C that veterans of this service should be awarded the Australian General Service Medal and Returned from Active Service Badge;

(d)

the critical role that adequate recognition of service plays for the morale, retention rates and recruitment of current ADF personnel and the need to improve the transparency and reviewability of the medal system’s rule-making, as acknowledged by Recommendation 8B of the Review; and

(e)

the moral obligation of providing all veterans with the support and recognition they deserve for their service and sacrifice; and

(2)

calls on the Government to:

(a)

adopt the recommendations of the Review to award the medals for Korean Post-Armistice Service; and

(b)

give further consideration to Recommendations 8B and 8C of the Review, regarding improvements to the medal system.

At issue is whether ADF personnel will be given just recognition for their service and sacrifice during the post-armistice period in Korea, from July 1953 to April 1956. I welcome the presence of a number of Korean War veterans in the public gallery today. The government has insulted these veterans by not providing them with a sensitive and timely decision. It has discarded the outcomes of its own independent review, which conducted extensive hearings into the matter. This response has been nothing short of complete arrogance towards some very impressive Australians.

The Post-Armistice Korean Service Review was established to examine the level of recognition that post-armistice service has been given. On 20 December 2005, the highly competent panel, chaired by Rear Admiral Ian Crawford and Garry Nehl AM, delivered their findings to the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, De-Anne Kelly, who is at the table today. Minister Kelly and her successor, Minister Billson, did not respond to the report and ignored veterans’ requests for a meeting until May 2006, some six months after it was handed down. At that time Minister Billson still provided no response to the review’s findings. While time appears immaterial to the government, the same cannot be said for the veterans, who continue to suffer distress while awaiting a fair outcome. Distressingly, a number have passed away since the review was instigated.

Minister Billson’s eventual decision was a bombshell. The committee’s very sensible recommendations for an Australian General Service Medal and a Returned from Active Service Badge for Korea veterans were flatly rejected. Also rejected were the calls for a much-needed improvement of the decision-making process. These measures would have afforded veterans the same recognition as their counterparts in the United States and ensured at least one award that explicitly recognised service in Korea in the post-armistice period.

The awards were refused because of a distinction between ‘warlike’ and ‘non-warlike’ service. The terms are distinguished by such factors as whether the application of force ‘was authorised to pursue specific military objectives’. The reality is that post-armistice service in Korea entailed patrolling with live ammunition, the maintenance of minefields and the manning of defensive positions. During this period enemy contact was not infrequent, and indeed 18 men died. Under the government’s criteria, however, this is considered ‘non-warlike’. The veterans have been given legal advice that they would have met the original criteria for the medals that were in place at the time of their service. That is a factor that we also call upon the government to consider.

The inconsistency in the government’s position leaves those who did post-armistice service in Korea with less recognition than personnel who served at Ubon RAAF base in Thailand during the Vietnam War. If the government is serious about taking care of our soldiers it has to put its money where its mouth is. It is time to demonstrate that Australia values the sacrifice of these Korean War veterans by giving all of them the recognition they deserve. The Labor opposition fully supports the veterans in their attempts to gain conferral of the awards. They are seeking it not simply for themselves but also for some fallen mates. Labor calls upon the government to urgently reconsider its position in this matter. It has justification for reviewing its decision: it has the sensible recommendations of the review. It is simply a matter of implementing those recommendations.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

I rise to address this private member’s motion in relation to the government’s position on the honours and awards system with respect to post-armistice service in Korea. I would like to first place on the record my utmost appreciation and admiration for all service personnel, both past and present, who have served or are currently serving our country with pride and great distinction both here in Australia and overseas. This government is committed to ensuring that all service men and women are appropriately recognised for their service in the defence of Australia and its interests. Any recommendations presented to the government in relation to these matters are given careful consideration.

The latest report into defence awards was the Report of the post-armistice Korean service review. It made four recommendations that the government did not agree with, and the minister has outlined the reasons. Firstly, recommendation 7B put forward the suggestion that a General Service Medal be struck. However, this medal would be awarded in exactly the same service situations as the existing Australian Service Medal. Why would we need two medals recognising the same service?

Recommendation 7C states that post-armistice service in Korea warrants the issuing of the Returned from Active Service Badge. This recommendation was not accepted by the government because this badge is presented in conjunction with the Australian Active Service Medal, which is awarded for warlike service. The Australian Service Medal, which has been awarded for post-armistice service in Korea, is for service in peacekeeping and non-warlike conditions. The very fact that an armistice agreement had been signed means warlike conditions had ceased. Again, this is a valid reason for the government not agreeing with the recommendation.

The other two recommendations not accepted by the government, 8B and 8C, relate to the procedures of the honours and awards system. I agree that the awarding of medals must be transparent. Indeed, there are rules governing the issuing of medals, and certain guidelines which need to be met are very clear. For instance, if you are serving in warlike conditions—as a result of a resolution of the parliament—you would be awarded the Australian Active Service Medal. The existing honours and awards system is already subject to the highest levels of scrutiny, with an interdepartmental committee being the principal advisory body to government.

When a service member receives a medal, it is recognition for the role they performed in serving their country and in defending the values of our nation. When a medal is awarded, it is worn with great pride. If we were to have multiple medals for the same service, it would only serve to devalue the medal and its recognition. Creating another medal as suggested in the motion, such as the General Service Medal, with almost identical eligibility conditions to the Australian Service Medal, simply makes one medal less important than the other.

The paramount factor in Australia’s honours and awards system is for the recipients to feel that they have been recognised by the Australian people. That being said, I find it quite ironic that this motion can be put forward with any credit by a member of the Labor Party. In 1994, when the Labor Party were in government, they presented to the parliament—through the committee of inquiry into defence and defence related awards—the CIDA report, the report of a comprehensive public inquiry into the Australian systems of honours and awards. In fact, the report was presented by the then Minister for the Arts and Administrative Services, then Senator Bob McMullan, now the member for Canberra, and the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Senator John Faulkner, who is still in the Senate.

The CIDA report, which was presented by the then Labor government, recommended that a medal called the Australian Service Medal be created to replace the General Service Medal. That recommendation was accepted by the Labor government. The report also recommended that the Australian Service Medal with clasp ‘Korea’ be awarded to those who served in Korea after the signing of the armistice, and that recommendation was accepted. It appears that this motion put forward by a member of the Labor Party seeks to re-establish the very medal which the Labor Party rejected when they were in government. Therefore, this motion put forward by the opposition is in direct conflict with what the Labor Party did when they were in government. (Time expired)

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

It is with pleasure that I stand here in the chamber today and acknowledge the presence of some veterans of the Korean conflict and, through this motion, raise public issues with respect to the proper recognition of their service for our country. As previous speakers have done, I stand here proud of the performance of the Australian Defence Force in a range of conflicts and proud of the work that these men and their colleagues did in Korea so many years ago. Unlike one of the speakers so far, I do have real concerns about what has happened to the proper recognition of that service.

The member for Barton went through a number of issues with respect to what has occurred, so I will just go through a series of points which I think are relevant to the situation, to some extent working through his contribution. The first point is: let there be no doubt that this was a real conflict. It was a particularly tough war. The conditions in Korea were quite appalling, and they did not change on the day the armistice was put into effect. The fact is that those who stayed behind to enforce the peace were in a situation which was not that peaceful at all. Eighteen Australians died during that period, and that needs to be recognised.

Over the last 50 years, the people involved have been looking to get proper recognition of what actually occurred. This led to the establishment of an independent review. The independent review aspect is very important. The previous speaker, the member for Maranoa, who is of course a former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, talked about the fact that, when medals were being considered during the time of the previous Labor government—in fact, in my first term in this place—there was an independent review. That review came down with a series of recommendations, and the recommendations that the member for Maranoa went through were actually accepted by the government of the day.

Aspects of that process have been revisited, and there has been another independent review, but what has happened? The government have rejected that review and rejected the recommendations of the review. There were, I think, some six recommendations from this particular independent review, of which four were rejected and two were accepted. But one of the recommendations that was accepted just said, ‘We agree with the recommendation that there should be more publicity, more education and more understanding about issues in this area,’ but then went on to say, ‘It is already done.’ The other recommendation that was agreed to was a recommendation from the independent review not to do something. Every single recommendation of the review that actually had something substantive in it was rejected by the government.

This is not a new experience for this government when it comes to veterans’ affairs and defence; it is regular occurrence. In fact, it is what they do when they have a problem. They set up an independent review and they allow that review to consult. They allow that review to go around the country to talk to people, to understand issues, to develop expertise and to come down with recommendations. Then what does the government do? Overwhelmingly and invariably, they reject the recommendations. The starkest example of that that we have seen in veterans’ affairs was with the Clarke review. And we are now seeing it with this review.

This review had two co-chairs. One was Rear Admiral Ian Crawford, a man I personally hold in high regard. He is a Korean veteran and deeply understands the nature of these sorts of issues. He is not someone that they pulled off the street. The second co-chair was a former member of this place, Garry Nehl, former member for Cowper and former occupant of the position of Deputy Speaker—a man whom I disagreed with on many occasions on many issues in this chamber, but a man whom I respect. I can recall when representatives of the Korean veterans came to see me to raise some concerns about whether this was going to be a genuine review. They were concerned about what the government might be up to. I said to them, ‘I think you’ll find that this is a man who will call it as he sees it and you ought to give him the chance to deliver some findings.’ As part of the review, he delivered some findings—and what happened? The government rejected the recommendations.

The government have not properly acknowledged the circumstances of these gentlemen and what they went through. The government have gone through a process and have improperly dealt with the results of that process. These veterans are being disregarded, improperly, as a result of the government ignoring an independent review. If you are going to have independent reviews to consider issues which are technical and controversial and which require additional consideration, you have to go down that track and deal with the results. They have not; they have ignored them. It is appalling. (Time expired)

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Barton for moving this motion, but I am still not clear about what the Labor Party will do to facilitate his motion. Perhaps the Labor Party’s position on this should be spelt out a little more clearly. My opening remarks on this motion will concern not only the contribution of those who served in Korea—both pre and post armistice—but also the contribution of all those Australians in past and present conflicts and those who will serve in the future. Every individual soldier, male and female, performs a vital role in Australia’s defence and makes a great contribution. Such a contribution has to be acknowledged in a way that distinguishes combat service as distinct from service in a non-warlike environment. Service in combat requires the highest order of personal commitment and sacrifice, and a grateful nation should be prepared to recognise appropriately that degree of calling. But it is unfair to compare one conflict with another, as they all have their unique and distinct qualities separating them.

When I was first approached by the Korean veterans, I understood exactly why they were seeking recognition for their comrades in arms. Their determination in seeking to right a perceived wrong is commendable, and I was prepared to assist them in any way that I could. I commend the government—the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the previous parliamentary secretary, Fran Bailey—for respecting the desires of the Korean veterans by investing in a process that explored their claims at arms length. It is only right and proper that such an examination was accorded. The appointed review panel dutifully explored the issues thoroughly and drew conclusions.

As you have heard, Ian Crawford, Garry Nehl, Gordon Jones and Colleen Thurgar, who made up the panel, were eminently qualified to explore thoroughly all the issues—and this they did. Their examination of the claims—to paraphrase their report—was conducted in a way that was open, public and impartial. The recommendations reflected their understanding of and belief in the laws and conventions that guided the awarding of suitable recognition to those who served in the Australian forces in post-armistice Korea. But at the end of the day there has to be a final arbiter—and in this the laws and conventions that guide our nation fulfilled that role, as they always must.

I have no issue with the need to improve the transparency and reviewability of the medal system’s rule-making process. People’s values do change over generations, and no man-made law or procedural convention is infallible. But change must come about for a legitimate and moral purpose, not simply as an imperative of a prevailing opinion. The provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act are based on the notion of due distinction for warlike service. To extend entitlements of this act to non-warlike service simply dilutes the contributions of those who served in a combat environment, and I certainly cannot support that.

The panel recommended that a special medal be struck to recognise post-armistice service. On the surface, I can see some logic, but in doing so we are creating another medal, thereby diluting the significance of existing medals struck for the purpose. The post-armistice servicemen would be entitled to the Australian Service Medal with bar ‘Korea’. By definition, they would not be entitled to the Australian Active Service Medal. Some received the Returned from Active Service Badge, in accordance with the repatriation provisions as they existed at the time. But that in itself is not an acceptance of service in warlike conditions, even though the dangerous circumstances that existed at the time are fully acknowledged.

The government has accepted the view of the reviewing panel that post-armistice service in Korea did not constitute warlike conditions. So I see the recommendation for the striking of another medal somewhat incongruous. However, if the desire amongst veterans for dual medalling becomes compelling, it is a matter that should be explored down the track. I would certainly be willing to proceed with that. As for a review of the medal system, there is nothing wrong in pursuing a policy of finessing provisions in any area of law.

I respect entirely the motives of these Korean veterans in seeking redress, as I respect my colleagues on the other side for raising this debate. Of course we want to accord the recognition that is deserved—and in bucketloads—but we do not want to do that at someone else’s expense. The integrity of qualifying service must be maintained, and the philosophy upon which it was based, born after the Great War, has served Australian service men and women very well. (Time expired)

David Hawker (Speaker) 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.