Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

recognises and commends service undertaken by all those who have served the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the people of Australia in the name of Australia;

(2)

takes note of service undertaken by ADF personnel on ‘Undeclared Operations’ on behalf of the Australian Government and the Australian people;

(3)

commends personnel on ‘Undeclared Operations’ for their duty on behalf of all Australians by working to serve, protect and defend Australian citizens against perceived threats;

(4)

acknowledges the risks associated with ‘Undeclared Operations’ and notes that the personnel recruited understood the significant risks involved in their work; and

(5)

calls upon the Department of Defence to reconsider declaring such missions as ‘Active Service’.

While this motion is expressed in broad terms, it is specifically about recognition of those Royal Australian Navy submarine personnel who participated in ‘intelligence collection missions’ in the period from 1978 to 1992. I am pleased that the member for Bradfield and former defence minister, Brendan Nelson, will be speaking on this motion as well. As defence minister he came to my electorate and met with one of these submarine commanders so he has an intimate knowledge of the subject. I note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will also speak on this motion.

We expect much of the members of our armed forces. In return, the Australian government, on behalf of the people, must recognise that service. This motion seeks to do just that. As a nation we need to recognise appropriately those who served their country in these specific missions between 1978 and 1992. Successive governments have failed to act. This motion seeks the recognition of those RAN submarine personnel who participated in these missions.

During the period 1978 to 1992, the Royal Australian Navy submarines conducted intelligence collection missions in areas to the north and north-west of Australia and in areas outside of Australia’s sphere of influence but in areas of perceived threat. These missions were conducted at a height of the Cold War. They were also conducted as war patrols. Submariners have told me that the then Chief of the Defence Force acknowledged this fact by his instructions to his commanding officers stating that ‘in the event of capture by foreign nationals the Commanding Officer was to seek POW status’. I am advised that the CDF believed such status, if granted, could result in better treatment for the men. POW, of course, means ‘prisoner of war’. These were certainly not normal peacetime operations or exercises and this was definitely not the normal practice. These were war-like operations.

The submariners who undertook these missions in this period have at no stage been permitted to discuss these secret missions in any detail. It is ironic perhaps that the matter was discussed in great detail in an article by Geoffrey Barker in the Financial Review Magazine dated December 2003. A number of books on the Cold War activities of the US and British submarine forces have now also been published. These submarine missions were ‘undeclared operations’ with only the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence of the day having knowledge of the operations within government. These operations were not included in any defence exercise program and were controlled exclusively by the Chief of the Defence Force.

These intelligence collection missions were only stopped, according to this article by Geoffrey Barker, by the then Minister for Defence and the then Prime Minister in 1992 because one of the submarines on such a mission apparently came close to creating a diplomatic incident. These missions lasted up to five weeks or more, and a policy of total electronic emission silence was imposed during such a mission. Geoffrey Barker in his article points out that life on these submarines was lonely and isolated, as well as perilous. While no-one can take away from the fact that it takes a special person to take up the challenge as a member of a submarine crew, I emphasise that these particular missions were different from normal peacetime exercises. When on these secret missions the submariners had no communications with family. Personal bad news was withheld from crew members until patrols ended.

With intelligence collection as their priority task, their whereabouts while on the task was unknown to anyone but themselves. If while ‘collecting’, a submarine had suffered an accident or had been attacked and thus damaged or sunk, the search area for the ADF to find the submarine would have covered millions of square miles in foreign waters.

Again, Geoffrey Barker notes that despite the submarine being designed to accommodate a crew of five officers and the 57 ratings, these missions contained more than 75 people on board. In addition to the normal complement there were always some submarine service trainees and civilians operating specialised intelligence collection equipment. He noted that during the patrols perhaps not more than 10 people on board would know the boat’s location. A curtain was placed around the chart table to discourage curious crew members. This is not fantasy from an Ian Fleming novel, this is what our Australian submariners endured. These operations were conducted in warlike conditions, not peacetime exercise—in other words, active service.

Their families, or the general public, may never have known if an entire RAN submarine crew was lost at sea or was in a foreign prison camp had one of these submarines been compromised during such a mission. During these secret missions at the height of the Cold War our submarines entered other nations’ areas of interest and were told they could penetrate territorial waters of those nations if the intelligence collection potential warranted such action. This was effectively authorisation for that submarine to commit a hostile act. Perhaps this is why these men have been denied the recognition they deserve, which is active service. Those submarines were part of the dark side of the politics of the Cold War. Their service due to the national interest should be recognised and not just shoved aside and put in the too-hard basket because we might upset some countries who are now our friends.

In Australia we have a system of recognising those who participated in active service and served their country. They are recognised publicly by the award of the Australian Active Service Medal. To quote from the official Australian government website:

The Australian Active Service Medal recognises service of Australian Defence Force…

…            …            …

The medal is awarded with a clasp to denote the prescribed operation.

This medal has been awarded to our servicemen and women who have served in areas such as Kuwait, Cambodia, Vietnam, East Timor, Namibia and Somalia. The main difference is these operations were in the public arena whereas the submarine operations were part of the Cold War. The Australian government deployed them in the national interest and their service should be recognised.

As a member of the Howard government, I was disappointed that the service of these crews was not recognised by that government in a timely way. Since the election of the Rudd government I have continued to bring this matter to the minister’s attention, to have this service by these submariners recognised. This is nothing to do with party politics; this is about justice. The correct and appropriate recognition should be either to award an Australian Active Service Medal with special operations clasp to the crews on these missions—thus granting full active service status—or to recognise submariners under the terms of the award of a new medal similar to that being discussed for SAS personnel for their special operations in the 1980s, which apparently includes active service recognition. It would not be difficult to classify these special operation missions and grant active service status for our submarine personnel. We do not expect that submariners will face similar conditions in the future to that which they faced in the Cold War, but if that did happen in some future era submariners could expect recognition of their service.

I am happy to say that today I have been advised there has been real progress in the process of recognition of the missions undertaken by these submariners. This is the right thing for Australia to do and I look forward to this announcement from the government in the near future.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the honourable member’s motion that this House recognises and commends service undertaken by all those who have served the Australian Defence Force and the people of Australia in the name of Australia. No official role as the member for Dawson makes me prouder than honouring our men and women in uniform, whether it be by a richly deserved medal of service or by welcoming home troops from active operation in the Middle East and elsewhere with a handshake and a ‘Welcome home, we are proud of you.’

I have participated both in my electorate and in Townsville as a representative of the federal government and the minister on many occasions. I have been able to say thank you and look our men and women in uniform directly in the eye and say, ‘Yes, we are proud of you. Well done and thank you. You serve our nation with honour and integrity. You deserve the respect of our nation and I know from my own experience that you have the respect of other nations with whom we have had joint operations.’ Army, Air Force and Navy play a vital role in the defence of our nation. Our regular and reserve forces form the backbone of our national defence.

I further feel a sense of pride in our men and women in uniform after seeing firsthand their active service overseas just recently on a parliamentary program I undertook to the Middle East. I spent 10 days on the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program with five colleagues. We went into various live operations. One of them, which was particularly pleasing for me, was doing reconnaissance and surveillance for quite a few hours on an Orion P-3 and having firsthand demonstrations of all the surveillance equipment and everything that is onboard. Truly, we have some excellent technology being operated by highly skilled men and women. They really do serve us with integrity and honour.

It was particularly pleasing to go out to the Warramunga, an Anzac class warship, for three days and experience operations there as they were watching what they call the ‘hash highway’—with the poppy season in Afghanistan in full bloom and the harvest on. I was able to watch them monitoring the movements and transition of those drugs. It was particularly pleasing to meet someone from the electorate of Dawson—the chef. I was very impressed with the quality and the nutritional value of the food he was serving. I was particularly pleased to spend time with many other Queenslanders on that ship. I happened to notice that almost half the ship’s company were Queenslanders, which was even more pleasing.

It was a fantastic community experience because a ship is a whole community. Looking at all the facilities—the living and working conditions of our men and women in uniform—we must never forget that they are workers like any other worker in society and they deserve health and safety conditions and top-quality equipment, terms and conditions just as the rest of our society does.

Our men and women serve the government and the people of Australia. We should recognise their service in whichever form that takes, whether it can be revealed or not revealed. The most important thing anyone can do in life is recognise and appreciate the service of others to the community and for the common good of the nation. I believe the government recognises the service in many ways, including through an honours and awards system. In warlike situations the Australian Active Service Medal or the campaign medals, for example the Afghanistan Medal or the Iraq Medal, give recognition to those who have endured long and arduous periods in war operations. For non-warlike operations the Australian Service Medal and the Service Medal with a Special Ops are also awarded.

An election commitment of the Rudd Labor government was to establish an independent tribunal to consider longstanding defence honours and awards issues. This was established administratively in July 2008 with legislation to be introduced this year. This tribunal has already completed two inquiries and another five are underway.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we cannot do enough to recognise and appreciate the gallantry and the service in whatever aspect it may be—on the frontline or behind the scenes. Our military services are a whole community and every part of that community is important and deserves to be recognised and appreciated. I can think of no better example of this than one of my constituents, Keith Payne, who received the VC. He is an outstanding man and it has been a pleasure to get to know him, to hear his stories of bravery and of the tremendous work he has done over the years since Vietnam serving people across this nation. He truly is a people’s hero, one who has been recognised and appreciated around Australia. I am so glad that people like Keith are being recognised. I continue to say that, whoever they are, whether they are, prominent people like Keith or people behind the scenes like the chef who comes from Andergrove in Mackay, they all deserve to be recognised and appreciated equally. I commend the motion.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support very strongly this motion. I commend the member for Fairfax for bringing it to the attention of the House and for his tireless, loyal and deep commitment to seeing that there is appropriate recognition for Australia’s submariners. In relation to that, I say to the member for Dawson that, whilst respecting what he said, submariners are not workers like any other Australian worker, which is why we have this motion before us. The recognition of Australia’s submariners, their service and sacrifice is, in itself, a metaphor for Australia’s history in submarines.

In 1914, three years after the formation of the Royal Australian Navy, the first two submarines were delivered from British shipyards to Australia. AE1 was lost off New Guinea but AE2, which would be known, sadly, to only a relatively small number of Australians, undertook that heroic mission through the Dardanelles on the morning of 25 April, 1915, getting through the narrow passage, the currents and the fortifications to sink a Turkish cruiser and to follow the orders it was given to ‘run amok’ and, five days after embarking on that campaign, to be disabled and scuttled. But how many Australians would know of it? And the truth of it is that this is a maritime nation. Maintaining a strong, technologically advanced submarine capability is vital. I commend the government for recognising that in its recent white paper by expanding Australia’s submarine fleet. This country has had 23 submarines commissioned since the establishment of the Royal Australian Navy in 1911. As Sir Winston Churchill said:

Of all the branches of men in the forces, there is none which shows more devotion and faces grimmer perils than submariners.

There is an underlying stress in submarine service that will always be with us and that stress is comprised of habitability, long periods away from home, personal communication issues and communication whilst at sea. Submarine work is also hazardous and in some cases downright dangerous, particularly for those who are the subject of this motion in Oberon class submarines. The work Australian submarine crews undertake is known to very few in the Navy, to very few in Defence and, I can assure you, as a former defence minister, to very very few in government. In fact, I would like it noted that, as a former defence minister, I am speaking in support of the motion but, for reasons that are obvious, I cannot speak specifically about my own experiences and operations that are being and have been performed by Australian submariners, but I am making a point of being here to support this resolution.

During the Cold War, the Oberon class boats undertook long and dangerous missions. Yes, we were not at war in any conventional sense, nor were the submarines engaged in peacekeeping operations. They were not authorised to use force, but had the presence of these submarines been detected and had they been captured, an international incident would have been triggered. What, for example, might have been the consequences for these men—indeed, for the nation they served—had they been detected under rules of engagement that allowed for hot pursuit of intelligence targets or for being in extremely close proximity to surface ships of other nations? It should not be necessary to paint a picture, particularly for those who lived through the Cold War.

It is very difficult to know precisely how many Australian men—and, more recently, women—have served in our submarines but it is at least 1,000. The Oberon class served this country from 1965 to 2000. We heard from the member for Fairfax that there were as many as 75 onboard in extraordinarily cramped and potentially dangerous circumstances doing what they had been asked to do by their country. I am very strongly of the view that both sides of parliament need to work earnestly to break through the intransigence of the military to see that these men, as they were from the Oberon class days, are recognised for the service that they undertook on the part of our country.

There is much injustice in life and there is even more in the recognition of military service. Every Australian man and woman that wears or has worn this uniform has given a special service to this nation. It is unfair to compare them, whether it is the cook on HMAS Warramunga or whether it is Keith Payne VC. For some of our personnel who are appropriately and rightly awarded an active service medal, the comparison with what was done in submarines where they are denied this is one that I find difficult to justify and I strongly support the resolution.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with the other speakers in support of the service men and women of Australia. There would be few things that I think all members of this parliament would agree with in such a committed way other than the proposition that we should be providing as much support to our defence men and women as our nation can muster. We tend to focus on the men and women of our defence forces when they are on active deployment in high profile activities. Unfortunately, we do not provide the same focus to those people engaged in less high profile activities, nor—dare I say—provide the same degree of concern for them years later, when we should. There are many examples that go back quite some years that bring none of us great glory.

I think of the situation of the recognition of the Long Tan soldiers who waited many years to gain a proper recognition for their quite remarkable and heroic efforts on that day in August 1966. The ongoing issues associated with the British Commonwealth occupation forces—those Australians who participated in the early days after the cessation of hostilities in Japan and who occupied territory in Japan in quite difficult circumstances. There is the Australian Women’s Land Army—I have to say that I did not know a great deal about them until 1995, when we had the Australia Remembers program. That was an absolutely wonderful program which my old mate Con Sciacca deserved great credit for. I vividly remember going to a number of functions with these ladies, who were then in their late 60s and early 70s. They were very sprightly ladies in their 70s. To think of them 50 years earlier, they really did the nation proud. They were wonderful people.

We are going back many years in dealing with those issues. With respect to the matter of most concern to the member for Fairfax, those people who were engaged in activities which do not always—for good reason—find their way into the public consciousness. I think it needs to be said that all security forces engage in activities which—for very good reason—are not the sort of things that are publicised or that are heralded in public or even in a semi-private environment. As the former Minister for Defence has attested to, even within government, few are familiar with some of these things. That is not to say that there is anything untoward or improper in those activities. They are properly conducted, authorised activities.

For the record, I do want to say that the wording of the resolution unfortunately refers to ‘undeclared operations’. That can be a bit evocative. Those who follow Hollywood movies might interpret that in a way which I am sure the member for Fairfax did not intend, but in the reporting of this I think it is important to comprehend that we are not, here, talking about the sorts of things that Hollywood likes to glamorise in some of their movies as ‘undeclared’ military activities.

As I say, these are legitimate, authorised activities but which for good reason, as with every other security force in the world, are not publicised. Those engaged in those activities do deserve proper recognition and, along with Long Tan, along with the Women’s Land Army and many of these others, it has been a tortuously slow process. We are talking decades—and inexplicably, I have to say. I was intimately involved in the pursuit of recognition medals for the Long Tan soldiers, and it amazed me how difficult it was to get what seemed to me a blatantly just outcome. These are issues that are being properly progressed at the moment. There are within government necessary reviews in process. I would like to think that, as we were recently able to resolve the Long Tan medal issue, we can deal with many of these outstanding matters as well.

Can I also add my words of endorsement to all those who have served in our submarine fleet as well. Our submarine capability is critically important for an island nation such as Australia. I wholeheartedly endorse the words of the member for Bradfield, the former Minister for Defence, in respect of that. It is an absolutely essential capability, and the men and now women who serve on those submarines are special people—every single one of them—and they all deserve special recognition.

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

I rise in the Main Committee this evening to support the motion of the member for Fairfax particularly as it relates to submariners, and especially those who served in the Oberon class during the Cold War period. I must say, as a former veterans’ affairs minister—and the former minister for defence on our side is also here—we have all had to come to grips with this issue from time to time. We have just heard from the Chairman of the Defence Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade that throughout both sides of the House being in government the issue of recognition for service has sometimes been a very difficult one. I think we would all agree that there have been anomalies from time to time. Issues can be overlooked, but as time goes on the important job that we have to do is to ensure there is fairness and equity and that those have served their country in uniform in the Australian Defence Force are duly recognised for that service.

We have just heard the member for Brisbane say, and I am sure we would all agree, that submariners really are a very special breed of people. I have been inside a submarine but I have never dived in one. I am not quite sure how I would react to being down there for days or weeks on end. They are very special people and it is a very, very special capability. The capacity of submarines, including our new Collins class submarines, to be able to get into positions that can retrieve information undetected is a resource that we should not take lightly. It is not only the submarine itself; it is the skill of the submariners in knowing what to do—how to manoeuvre quietly and secretly, without detection—that plays a vital role in the security of our nation.

I want to touch on the issue of undeclared operations for submariners during the Cold War. When these submariners were recruited I am sure they were aware at the time of the special nature of their operations and I am sure they would have become aware that they were operating in an environment during the Cold War where, had they been detected or picked up, they would have been subject to not only capture but also perhaps execution. If you look at some of the material that has come to light over the past few years, while there is very scant information, some of these submariners were only metres away from what would have been considered a not so friendly ship or other dangerous situations, collecting vital information for our intelligence services.

At the time that they were sent on these missions, the only people who would have been aware of it, as the former defence minister would be aware, would have been the Prime Minister, the defence chief, the defence minister and perhaps the foreign minister. It was only a very few people who would be aware of where these operations were to go. They were at the time a very special operation. Albeit these undeclared operations may not have been considered warlike for the recognition of the Australian Active Service Medal, we should consider them to be a special operation that needs to be recognised. I am sure that is what the personnel are seeking—I commend them for their operations and for the skill that they had—let alone the families that were back home knowing that their loved ones were away on an operation and not even they would know where they were. That was the nature of the operation.

I would support the member for Fairfax. I hope that we are able to find a way to recognise the service of those submariners who were operating in a secret environment during that Cold War period. For without the work that they did, perhaps other circumstances could have arisen against these countries that could have led to an engagement with us. Let us ensure that this little group who did a very special operation for us during that Cold War period are duly recognised. I support the member for Fairfax and commend him for bringing forward this motion to the Committee.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to give strong support to the motion moved forward by the member for Fairfax and note his commitment to furthering this issue. The motion has been put forward in five paragraphs. Paragraph (1) speaks to the general nature of what the honourable member is aiming to achieve, and paragraph (5) to the particular, which includes the submariners that all the other members have mentioned in their contributions. I will restate paragraph (1):

Recognises and commends service undertaken by all those who have served the Australian Defence Force and the people of Australia in the name of Australia.

I know that every member in this House from every political persuasion would support that very strongly, as we do. Paragraph (5), and this is really the nub of the motion, seeks to secure recognition in particular for the submariners—I would take it as all that flows for those who served our nation defending our national interest through the Australian Defence Force in all manner of operations—that have not to date attracted the recognition they so rightly deserve. There is a whole lot of history to this issue. As the honourable member and other members making contributions know, this matter did not arise yesterday. Many people have been seized with this matter over a number of years.

The particular class of personnel that the motion refers to were mentioned in the Clarke review. They were recommended for inclusion and, as the honourable member pointed out, they were not included to be picked up there. I note that the government has uplifted that from the Clarke review. I have not looked at that particular review for some time but I am advised it is recommendation 31 and that it talks specifically about service on submarines on special operations. That is what we are trying to achieve here. That work we are talking about is exacting, and I find it very difficult to conceive of being in a submarine. As has been said here, those who undertake that work are really special people. I want to honour the work that they do. They deserve absolutely every recognition that we can give.

I want to make special mention here of the nature of service review, which is still underway and gathering momentum. I know that, to those who have served, all of these things should have been resolved yesterday. But the fact is that the nature of service review is taken very seriously by all. As the honourable member for Fairfax said in his contribution, there is serious progress and hopefully there will be an ability to report some of the progress to the House. I want to make some points about the nature of service review, which was formed in July 2002 to address deficiencies in the process for determining the nature of service classification for ADF military operations. There are currently 91 claims before the nature of service review team covering 30 different periods of service. Resolution of these cases requires detailed research, including the extraction and examination of archived material. This can very time consuming, particularly since the nature of service review team has been directed to use the legislation in vogue at the time of the period of service in question, which stands to reason. Expedient administrative management of these cases, however, does not guarantee a quick resolution—and that is what we all want—as the majority of cases also require input from agencies outside of Defence and over which Defence has limited control. As a result, a specific time frame for completing each submission is not always feasible. In addition to the 91 externally generated representations, the nature of service review team is addressing five internally generated requests and 15 requests from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for review of past operations activity. I commend the motion to the House.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As shadow parliamentary secretary with portfolio responsibility for medals, I want the House to know and understand that I completely support the recognition of the service that these submariners have given to our country. The secretive nature of the operations that they were involved in has meant that many brave and deserving individuals have not been publicly recognised for their service, which in many cases was so dangerous and hazardous as to be considered warlike, using the current terminology. If anything was active service, this was—and I do not understand why the Defence Force has not been able to move quickly on this. I wrote to my opposite number in the government some time ago, but just got a holding response, and it seems to have been on hold since. This needs to be resolved.

There are obviously some difficult and technically complex issues to be resolved as review decisions are strictly based on the legislation or executive orders which applied at the time of service only. Subsequent changes to definitions of service and the associated entitlements conferred cannot be used to support retrospective claims. Hence a great deal of research is needed to uncover the governing circumstances under which personnel were sent on so-called ‘undeclared operations’. But the British have a very good system of dealing with this, and we should adopt that model so that these men who have served their nation so well in such dangerous situations can be honoured in the appropriate way.

Despite the difficulties and the necessary research involved, the government has a moral and contractual obligation to provide special recognition and, where appropriate, additional benefits to those who serve on dangerous operations at great personal risk. This defines the nature of ‘active service’ and it would be a terrible injustice to deny those who meet the qualifications their due recognition. Hence the opposition is calling on the Department of Defence and the minister to expedite the review of the claims currently with the nature of service review team. It is also vitally important that the minister is transparent in his decision making for the benefit of the remainder of the wider veteran community.

I thank the member for Fairfax for bringing this motion to the House and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to express the opposition’s strong support for resolving this issue as quickly as possible. Although I detect bipartisan support here in the chamber this evening, if for some reason this were to go on until there was a change of government then the opposition, as the new government, would move immediately to resolve this particular issue.

The first part of the motion tonight recognises and commends service undertaken by all those who have served in the ADF. I just finish with the recognition of a small group of men and women who do not publicly get recognition very often. They are part of what is called Operation Paladin. Paladin is the longest serving United Nations operation in the world. It deploys military observers who work and live in the Middle East, in Lebanon and Syria, on the Golan Heights. Their object, really, is to do nothing. That sounds odd, but in fact by doing nothing they do everything. They keep the peace and they make sure that Hezbollah and Israel remain at arm’s length; they make sure that the Syrians and the Israelis remain at arm’s length. They do a fabulous job.

The point of mentioning Operation Paladin is to say that 27 governments have troops represented in that operation and, head and shoulders above all else, Australians are considered the most professional and the best trained of all of the soldiers who participate. Also understand that it is not just men who are there; it is women too. I was fortunate to meet two of our military observers a month and a half ago, one in Damascus and one in Beirut. They are every bit as good as the men who are there. They do a mighty job for our country and I thank them for their service.

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

The time allocated 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.