Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I wish to speak about a petition which has come before the Standing Committee on Petitions and which I have just presented to the House. It illustrates something of the breadth of concerns petitioners bring to the House. This petition calls for the House to make representations to the British Crown to review the sentences and convictions of Harry Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton at their court martial in South Africa in 1902 and to seek their pardon.

Of the three, Morant is the best known. He gave his name to Bruce Beresford’s 1980 film Breaker Morant. Morant was a well-known figure in his own day. In his article on Morant in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, RK Todd notes that Morant’s poetry appeared in the Bulletin, where the work of Henry Lawson and other writers of the day was published, from 1891 to 1899. In 1899 Morant enlisted to serve in the war in South Africa. Todd notes that he served with ‘distinction’ before joining the Bushveldt Carbineers, one of a number of irregular units ‘formed to counter Boer guerrillas’. Handcock and Witton were also members. During their time with the Bushveldt Carbineers, Morant, Handcock and Witton were brought before a court martial, accused of the summary execution of 12 Boer prisoners. One was already wounded and 11 were killed while surrendering. They were also accused of the murder of a German missionary, the Reverend Heese, who had seen the prisoners before they were killed. Handcock and Morant were found guilty of murdering the 12 prisoners, inciting to murder and manslaughter and were executed on 27 February 1902 at Pretoria. The Dictionary of Biography entry on Handcock notes that he was the ‘first Australian national executed for war crimes’ and that ‘his sentence, which had been carried out without the knowledge and consent of the Australian government, aroused bitter public controversy’.

There have been a number of views on the actions and trial of Australians. One has been that the Carbineers were under orders from the British command in South Africa not to take prisoners. As Todd suggests, this was argued as a defence in the court martial, but the existence of this order has been constantly denied. Other factors have been seen as harmful to their case—in particular, the limited time and resources allowed them. This, and continued suspicions that there were orders to not take prisoners, has led to a perception that Morant, Handcock and Witton were, as in the title of a later book by Witton, the ‘scapegoats of the empire’. In this view the Australians were held responsible for a strategy to which the military command was unwilling to admit. However, Craig Wilcox, writing in the Age, takes another view. He suggests that in fact ‘one detachment’ of the Bushveldt Carbineers had ‘started randomly killing’ and that when Morant joined the detachment ‘he began killing too’. To Wilcox, Morant and Handcock’s guilt is ‘all too clear’ and ‘seemed clear at the time’. Wilcox doubts that the take-no-prisoner order ever existed. If so, the crimes were solely those of the men accused and the main moral question hinges on capital punishment rather than culpability.

However, there appears to be some level of agreement across these two camps that the accused men had little opportunity to prepare a defence against the charges. This petition argues that there are indeed ‘questions and concerns’ over ‘fairness, legal process and sentencing’ at the court martial, and it is on these grounds, the petition suggests, that the cases against Morant, Handcock and Witton should be reviewed.

Tonight I have tried to get two messages across. One is that petitioners bring a rich and varied set of concerns to the petitions process, and this is a sign of its vitality and importance to the House. A second, which I underscore, is that it is the role of the committee to play with a straight bat. Tonight I have argued neither for nor against the petition, but I have aired its concerns and tried to put them into perspective. That is a neat metaphor for the role of the Petitions Committee and is central to its future work for the House. I look forward to getting the response to this petition and I am sure that the principal petitioner looks forward to the minister’s response, which we hope to receive within 90 days.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise on this issue. The author of the petition that was just spoken about is a constituent of mine, Commander James Unkles, who has devoted a lot of time to, and done a lot of research into, this issue. He has uncovered important new material, as he sees it, and he has shown a great diligence, as I am sure the Petitions Committee would agree, in looking into the facts at the time and afterwards. His efforts have been nothing short of incredible. He is asking that what he has researched be inquired into, be examined, be reviewed, and he has, in the best traditions of the parliament, presented that as a petition to the parliament. It has already received some coverage in the media—rightly so. I want to commend him. I will in the adjournment debate later in the week in this House speak more extensively on the subject.