Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Vietnam Veterans Day is held on 18 August each year to commemorate the iconic Battle of Long Tan in 1966;

(b) on that day, 108 Australian and New Zealand soldiers in Delta Company, 6 RAR fought for hours in torrential rain to fend off a regimental assault on the Australian base by approximately 2000 regular Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army troops;

(c) 18 Australians were killed and 24 were wounded, and approximately 500 enemy soldiers were killed;

(d) despite their victory, our veterans were treated appallingly upon their return to Australia; and

(e) the number and degree of awards presented to Australian soldiers following the Battle of Long Tan is today widely regarded as ‘being little short of insulting in view of the heroism displayed’; and

(2) recognises:

(a) the tireless efforts of retired Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith, over almost half a century, to seek recognition for his soldiers;

(b) that Delta Company was awarded a Unit Citation for Gallantry in late 2009, however, two officers and ten other ranks still have not received the individual awards that were recommended in 1966, despite several reviews and inquiries naming the men; and

(c) the Delta Company Commander and four Platoon Commanders, who recommended the awards in 1966, have provided supporting material to the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, and Part 2 of the Valour Inquiry is currently underway.

Before I begin, I acknowledge the work of authors Bob Buick and Paul Ham, whose works have provided essential information for this speech. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Retired Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith and the hundreds of veterans that I have spoken to over the years.

I would like to read a short extract from a radio message transmitted during the Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966 at 1630—Major Harry Smith to HQ: '11 Platoon has taken heavy casualties, almost out of ammo, and the platoon commander is dead.' His words were simple and to the point, and yet they say a great deal about the situation on the ground.

Just after 4 pm, Delta Company's first contact was a surprise encounter with approximately eight Viet Cong, and 11 Platoon moved forward to pursue them, separating from the rest of the company by about 300 metres. The enemy's attack, when it came, fell almost entirely on 11 Platoon. Tracer fire, rocket propelled grenades and machine gun fire tore into 11 Platoon, pinning them in a barrage that lasted about 15 minutes. Just as it was for most of the battle, artillery support was the Australians' saviour. At 1625, Smith called Nui Dat for reinforcements. At 1650, Smith called for every gun in Nui Dat, advising of a battalion-strength assault. A monsoon was a godsend for the forward platoon, whose survivors were still pinned down. Smith called for resupply, called for air strikes and called for reinforcements between 1700 and 1720. At the forward platoon, Bob Buick did the only thing he thought he could: he called in artillery fire on his own position.

It is not my intention to provide a full description of the battle; however, during the artillery barrage, the remaining men from 11 Platoon made a run for it. As the survivors reached the line, Private Buddy Lea ran out and helped drag an injured Paddy Todd through the last few metres. Buddy would later be shot through the shoulder and badly wounded. As the company regrouped, what followed would go down in Australian military history as one of our most incredible acts of bravery.

The resupply, when it occurred, was in treacherous circumstances—some might even say it was a suicide mission. Flight Lieutenant Frank Reily insisted on flying to Delta Company's relief, and would go on his own if necessary.

The enemy continued to attack in waves until the arrival of armoured personnel carriers around 1700. At the end of the battle, 18 Australians had been killed and 24 wounded.

On 21 August 1966, Smith recommended Military Crosses for Sabben and Kendall. He also sought Mentioned in Dispatches, or MIDs, for Buick, Moore, Akell and a range of others. Smith has long called for a Victoria Cross for Jack Kirby. The Australians were awarded the Vietnamese cross of gallantry in various forms by the Vietnamese government, only to have Canberra direct that foreign awards could not be accepted. Instead, they received tourist dolls, cigars and cigarette cases.

And so began Smith's administrative battle—the fight for recognition of his soldiers. It is a fight with bureaucracy that has lasted almost 50 years. Smith was told he could not do anything about the lack of Australian battlefield honours, due to the Official Secrets Act, which lasts 30 years. But, after 30 years, he was told it was too long ago and there was nothing more to be done.

I assume that those involved in this decision had never before met Mr Harry Smith. He is the definition of tenacious. Words like 'stubborn', 'obstinate', 'resolute', 'firm', 'persistent', 'dogged', 'determined' and 'steadfast' are also pretty close to the mark.

Former Prime Minister John Howard and the coalition government convened a review in 2008, after agreeing that the 1998 EOWL review should have reconsidered the honours recommended in 1966. The 2008 review upgraded awards for three officers, including Harry Smith, but excluded two other officers and 10 men on the grounds that the original documentation from 1966 was absent. This is totally nonsensical, given that two of the officers' awards were upgraded based on testimony taken as part of the 2008 review.

Given these inconsistencies, a further review was undertaken in 2009 under the Labor government, only to determine that testimony on oath was unacceptable, saying: 'Their memories may have been dimmed by the passage of time.' Thus the panel could not accept verbal testimony, as it might impinge on the integrity of the honours system.

Well, I can assure you that their memory has not dimmed over time. In fact, it may well be clearer. Their nightmares have not gone away. Their injuries still ache. And the damage is still done. Justice, recognition and acknowledgement are yet to be delivered. For the men of Delta Company who fought in the Battle of Long Tan, it seems like it was only yesterday.

There is no need for more inquires, reviews or investigations. Enough of administrative delays and excuses! Fifty years is ample time to do what is right. We are the government of the day, and, in my opinion, an injustice has been done that must be addressed.

During one conversation, Harry Smith said something to me that I have never forgotten, and it is this: 'No-one has to tell me what did or didn't happen at Long Tan. I haven't forgotten. I was there.'

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the motion of the member for Hinkler, but I do need to make a couple of minor comments on aspects of the motion, just to pick up on a couple of points that I think are very important. Firstly, in point (a) his motion says:

Vietnam Veterans Day is held on 18 August each year to commemorate the iconic Battle of Long Tan in 1966 …

Let us be clear: Vietnam Veterans Day commemorates the service of all Vietnam veterans. It commemorates the courage and sacrifice of all Vietnam veterans. It is, I think, appropriately on 18 August because that is the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan and that has become, justifiably, the iconic battle of the Vietnam War, but it is a day to commemorate all Vietnam veterans.

Secondly, part (2)(c) of the motion reads:

… the Delta Company Commander and four Platoon Commanders, who recommended the awards in 1966, have provided supporting material to the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, and Part 2 of the Valour Inquiry is currently underway.

Sadly, that is not the case. The Valour Inquiry part 2 is actually not underway—or, arguably, a small element of it has been picked up and referred to the tribunal but the inquiry itself actually has not taken place.

I just want to pick up on that point. I commend the member for Hinkler for his brief outline of the battle and the circumstances around some of the outstanding matters with respect to the awards. Given the shortness of time available I will make several points—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member consider seconding the motion while he is on his feet?

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am more than happy to second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I second the motion.

I will now pick up on a couple of points that I think are central to the argument about where we go from here. The Labor government set up the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal to take the parliament out of consideration of awards, because too often—without reflecting on this matter—matters of heraldry and commemoration, for example what happened at Long Tan, have ended up being pursued in the parliament. The intent was to depoliticise and to provide a process where proper consideration of proposed recognition and awards could be done independent of the political process. That was the point behind the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. I am a little sad that we are still here, so many years after that tribunal was set up, considering this issue in the circumstances that we are.

With respect to the inquiries that have occurred in the past, the important point I would like to make very briefly is that a number of the inquiries that occurred in the years subsequent to 1966 were not able to consider the circumstances surrounding Long Tan, because the paper work had been disposed of. One can argue as to how that happened; the circumstances were that those recommendations did not go up the line to ensure that they were considered. So it missed the End of War List, for that reason and then also the Tanzer review. You then had a situation where it only became clear to Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith and his associates after the Official Secrets Act period had expired just what had not happened, and therefore what needed to be done.

Following on from that, there were inquiries under the Howard government, which were pushed on by members of the Labor opposition, like Vietnam veteran Graham Edwards. That came up with some changes and recommendations, which I support, but when at the first hearing of the Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, the issue came down to the question of documentary evidence versus testimony. I just want to make a quick point about that.

I accept that many years after the event it is not unusual for individuals to have recollections which are inconsistent with respect to what may have occurred in the heat of battle. However, what I do not accept and what I cannot accept is that, when a senior commander like Harry Smith tells you that he submitted documents, that fact is questioned. He submitted documents. There is no question. There is absolutely no question at all. The fact that those documents were submitted was confirmed by other commanders from the day it happened. To use that as an excuse is, in my view, unfair to the honour and the memory of those who did so much and unfair to the integrity of our awards system. The fact of the matter is: the issue of testimony ought to be able to be taken into account.

I will move on to the issue of what happens now. Former parliamentary secretary David Feeney referred this matter to Defence in March of 2013. In November last year, the now parliamentary secretary Darren Chester, member for Gippsland, wrote to the then CDF, again seeking advice on this matter. This has been with the Defence hierarchy now for in excess of 18 months. This matter needs to be brought to a head. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal ought to be given a reference to consider these matters properly in order to deal with this issue finally.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Hinkler for his ongoing battle, and his predecessor Paul Neville, who was also great friends with Harry Smith. I also acknowledge the member for Bruce, who I know feels very passionately about this issue.

I come to this position both as a former minister who got to know Harry Smith and the tenacity that the member for Hinkler speaks of, but also as a former member of the 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment. As part of that battalion, to this very day Delta Company—no matter whether you are an 18-year-old soldier today or whether you are an old hand—still wears the US recognition of that unit and its gallantry very proudly. It is something that 6RAR holds very much to its heart as part of what it means to be a member of that battalion.

But I come to this debate with I guess that little bit of history. It was on the way back from Iraq with Prime Minister Howard that I convinced him that the 30 years of bureaucracy was wrong in not allowing the recognition that the member for Hinkler spoke about. That recognition was denied on 2 September 1966 on the parade ground in Nui Dat, and it goes back to the history of what we are as a nation. It was because the Queen and her representative had to ensure that we were able to allow our soldiers to receive foreign decorations; hence, the officers received cigar boxes and the soldiers received traditional dolls. When you consider the enormity of this battle and what these men had been through, it is hard to imagine what must have been going through their heads on that day.

I want to concentrate on two quick aspects; first of the all battle itself. I was a platoon commander in 2/4RAR and a company 2IC of Alpha Company in 6th Battalion. We trained, but I am fortunate enough to say that I never went to battle. So, whilst I understand the concepts of battle and what these formations mean, I do not for one moment pretend to stand in this place as a person who has been in a two-way rifle range and say that I have experienced what these men have.

But to know that 11 platoon was out on the front and encountered the enemy—not being able to ascertain that they were what they were—formally trained and well equipped, but perhaps less qualified soldiers. They went after them in the way that Australian soldiers do. It would have been a formation that went forward; they then encountered much stronger resistance. In fact they were starting to be attacked on all sides. I think it was then a 10 platoon that was ordered to rejoin them, and they were unable to catch or join up with them. Then 12 platoon, the third platoon of the company, was ordered to make the same encounter.

What then transpired is 11 platoon had to make a fighting withdrawal to come back into a defensive line—one of the most difficult manoeuvres that you can imagine—with an incredibly determined, well-equipped and large force coming at them. The fact that this was not a catastrophe on a monumental scale—although still a disaster obviously with so many dead and wounded Australians—is testament to the training, the command, the discipline and the courage of the men of the battalion and the company and those that came to their rescue.

This is a bill about an antiquated quota system—a quota system which says that, in any particular theatre of war when Australian soldiers were there, there was a ratio of awards given for valour. I will put this in sporting parlance: imagine the Australian cricket team being told, 'Yes, everyone that scores 100, well done, you get a century, but in the history books we'll only record one per game.' There would be outrage. Being denied by nothing more than a quota system means that we have continued to disregard the valour and courage of these men and their disastrous return to Australia that was the experience of most Vietnam veterans.

As the member for Bruce said—and, as I know, the member for Hinkler feels—this can be rectified: just as 30 years of bureaucracy saying that, because South Vietnam no longer existed as a country, the soldiers who had been awarded those South Vietnamese valour medals could not wear them, was overturned in 2004, this decision can also be overturned.

To Harry Smith: what a great man. No wonder they were successful on the battlefield that day, because his tenacity and his leadership did not finish on 18 August; it has continued on in the memory of the soldiers whom he led so valiantly.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the three previous speakers: the member for Hinkler, the member for Bruce and the member for Fisher. They have canvassed the argument pretty well, and I endorse the comments made by the member for Bruce, in particular, around issues to do with the nature of the proposed resolution.

I stand here today as probably one of the few people in this place—in fact, sadly, probably the only person in this place, except for the member for Berowra—who may have been in the position of being called up for the Vietnam War. The member for Berowra is a bit older than me, so he would not have been called up in that period. To the people of my generation, the Vietnam War and Australia's involvement between 1962 and 1972 was an everyday part of our teenage and early adult lives. It scarred us in many ways.

The member for Fisher alluded to the very poor response that Australia gave to its fighting soldiers, men and women, naval and Air Force as well as army, who contributed to the Vietnam War, came back and were treated so abysmally. It was and remains an indictment on that generation of Australians who saw fit to undermine the confidence of the Australian community in those soldiers. Whether or not they were there for the right reasons is irrelevant; the fact is they were wearing the Australian uniform, and were instructed and directed by an Australian government to act and fight on Australia's behalf. It is very important that we acknowledge that that is the principal position we should all adopt around our fighting men and women when they go overseas, regardless of who is in power.

I was very, very fortunate and I understand the issues to do with the Battle of Long Tan where there were 18 service personnel killed and 24 wounded when Delta Company, as the member for Fisher rightly pointed out, along with others of the 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, engaged a much larger force of North Vietnamese army regulars. This battle demonstrated the courage, determination, tenacity and leadership that has been the hallmark of Australian military history, and they faced overwhelming adversity.

I had the great privilege to be at Enoggera on 18 August 2011 when the unit citation for gallantry was awarded by the Governor-General to Delta Company 6RAR at a ceremony. It was an appropriate recognition of the fighting qualities of these men and the leadership that Harry Smith gave those men in that battle.

We are here today to again acknowledge and recognise the importance of contribution of those men but also, most importantly, to understand that there were some 60,000 Australians, including ground troops, Air Force and navy personnel, who served in Vietnam for over a decade from 1962. This is a similar number of Australian serving men and women who have served in the Middle East area of operations over the last decade or so. This has had a tremendous impact on the Australian community, yet they came home and were so miserably treated. Now we have these older men and women and their partners, some still wearing badly the scars of their treatment and of that war.

We did not have in place at the time, I don't think, the appropriate mechanisms to recognise and address the scars that they carried with them and that many continue to carry to this day. I think we are very fortunate that we now have a system within the Department of Veterans' Affairs and across Defence which recognises what happens to soldiers, men and women, Air Force, navy, when they are at war and the possible outcomes.

Today all governments—governments of both persuasions in this place, the current government included—are committed to ensuring that treatment endured by many Vietnam veterans after the war never happens again but, most importantly, that we continue to look after their interests now and into the future; that the service and sacrifice of those who wear Australia's uniform are never forgotten; and that there is a range of services available through the Australian government, including the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service—a service founded by Vietnam veterans—to provide counselling support for 24 hours a day. The capacity for that organisation to provide the service for others has been expanded over recent times. I congratulate the government for doing that. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.