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

I rise today to talk about an issue that is important to many past and present servicemen and servicewomen. The issue I raise today is the increasing use of civilian terminology to describe military activities. Specifically, I want to talk about the issue of using the term ‘injured’, rather than ‘wounded in action’, to describe battlefield casualties. I have received many complaints from the veterans’ community with regard to this issue. My office has heard from individuals and groups. One group that has been very strong in its advocacy on this issue has been the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia, an organisation which does a very good job on behalf of its members. I may not always agree with its position but I cannot fault its dedication. The organisation fears that the historically important distinction between those who are injured and those who are wounded as a result of enemy action is being eroded.

There are two separate issues with regard to this. One is related to the new set of distinctions under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme. The second is the loss of a term that carried with it a measure of honour. On the first issue, can I be clear: Labor supported the new Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme, and my purpose today is not to propose any legislative changes to this scheme. I understand that the scheme has proven to be quite controversial within the veterans’ community, but I think we are still monitoring its implementation, and it is fair to say that we should wait for a clearer picture before we can judge its success.

The second issue is the one I want to talk about today. It relates to the erosion in descriptions of battlefield casualties of the distinction between those who are wounded as a result of enemy action and those who are injured. Increasingly we are seeing politicians, senior public servants, the media and the general public describe battlefield casualties as injuries. Can I say frankly that this is a disturbing change in the language we use to describe casualties suffered by our servicemen and servicewomen. The general public should be aware of the fact that the term ‘wounded in action’ has attached to it a certain honorific for the person involved. To be wounded in the service of one’s country is much more than simply suffering an injury. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to those injured in the service of our country. Their suffering is real and ought to be recognised and respected. However, this distinction is part of our military tradition and is something that is worth protecting.

I call on members of this House, senior public servants and the media to be careful in their use of language when describing battlefield casualties. These casualties are not injured personnel, but personnel who are wounded as a result of enemy action, and should be described as such. Using the term ‘injured’ demonstrates a lack of knowledge, at best, and a lack of respect, at worst. Administrative and bureaucratic necessities must not be allowed to see this distinction pass from use. This may seem a small distinction to some, but to many Australian service men and women, past and present, this is a very important distinction. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on us all to watch our language. Surely this is the least we can do for those who give this country so much. (Time expired)