Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to associate myself with my colleague Senator Urquhart and her comments. As she said, Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean was only 18 years of age when he committed an act of extraordinary bravery. On 1 December 1942, when the HMAS Armidale was struck by torpedoes its personnel were ordered to abandon ship. Sheean, although severely wounded by attacking Japanese aircraft, returned and strapped himself to one of the ship's guns to engage enemy aircraft. He shot down at least one of the aircraft and, in so doing, was defending his fellow personnel, knowing that he would go down with that ship. It's possible that Mr Sheean's actions, in drawing away the fire of enemy aircraft, saved the lives of his fellow crew members.

The Victoria Cross is awarded to a person who 'in the presence of the enemy' displays the:

… most conspicuous gallantry, or daring or pre-eminent acts of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty …

For those who know of Teddy Sheean's deeds and have followed the various inquiries into them—I've been here for 12 years and we've been debating this issue for longer than that—the Prime Minister's decision not to posthumously award him a VC is more than baffling. My Labor colleague Senator Urquhart moved for the documents relating to this decision to be produced, because this issue warrants public scrutiny.

On the face of it, the decision and explanations of those opposite make absolutely no sense. We had the Minister for Defence claim in this place that the 2019 review by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal did not present any new evidence. Senator Reynolds also claimed that their inquiry was a review of the 2013 decision, not a full merits based inquiry. Guess what? She was wrong on both counts, and that's according to the chair of the DHAAT. Chair Mark Sullivan's decision to write to the minister regarding her misleading the Senate is not something I think he would have taken lightly. Yet he did it. Given Senator Reynolds' explanation was comprehensively torn apart by Mr Sullivan, the reasons for the Prime Minister's decision not to accept the independent tribunal's unanimous recommendation of 11 members remain a mystery. That's why the Senate ordered the production of these documents—to get to the bottom of the mystery, because there's nothing yet in the government's public statements or statements to this place that excuses or justifies the decision.

I was also very surprised at comments in the media about this issue by the Liberal member for Braddon, Mr Pearce. Mr Pearce, I've got to say, is a fence-sitter and here's a classic example. I do recognise that Mr Pearce acknowledged that Mr Sheean's actions were worthy of a Victoria Cross, but he also stated that he thought the PM made the correct decision to have another review. Seriously, how long can you sit on the fence? That is the most ridiculous double standard you could come across. It's a particularly curious intervention given that Mr Pearce joined his Liberal colleagues in advocating for a VC to be posthumously awarded to Mr Sheean only a month earlier, saying he was satisfied with the process but not satisfied with the decision. I'm pretty disgusted that Mr Pearce would characterise Labor's advocacy as using this as a political football or conducting a chook raffle. Given that Mr Sheean was born on the north-west coast of Tasmania, I doubt Mr Pearce's constituents would appreciate his comments.

On this side, we take this issue very seriously. All we're asking for is the due process and transparency that Mr Sheean, his relatives and advocates deserve. I can't really see how awarding Mr Sheean a VC would upset the Queen, as has been suggested by a certain high-ranking military official. The VC is about courage and gallantry. It's not about whether someone else, no matter who it is, might be upset by a person—in this case, Mr Sheean—receiving the VC. Labor's advocacy is simply for the Prime Minister to accept the advice provided by independent experts. The excuses this government continue to provide, including those by the minister, are wearing pretty thin—certainly on the north-west coast of Tasmania.

I believe the Prime Minister's decision to announce yet another review of this matter is really worthy of a Yes Minister sketch. I can already hear the voice of Yes Minister's Bernard asking the Prime Minister if he's suggesting a review of the review of the review. Refusing Teddy Sheean a posthumous VC, in the face of all the evidence and the DHAAT's findings, is a gross injustice to this young Tasmanian war hero. It is a slap in the face to his family, his supporters and the veteran community.