Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken a number of times during the adjournment debate about those missing at Fromelles in northern France. As those listening will recall, it is at Fromelles that mass graves have been more recently discovered. Original estimates were up to 400 Australian and British dead from that horrific battle on 19 July 1916. I will not recount the detail but, as we are all aware, recovery of those men has now moved to a fairly advanced stage. The estimate is closer to 300, with 222 already recovered. It must be said at the outset that this has been a rather magnificent feat. We have not seen its like since the war finished on World War I battlefields. As with the final recovery of those missing in Vietnam, now also recovered, this has been achieved in the face of stiff bureaucratic scepticism and resistance. Now, of course, those tasked to do the recovery will be bestowed with plaudits. As is said, success has many fathers.

The real credit, though, goes to those who persisted year in and year out. In particular, I would like to acknowledge two people: Mr Jim Bourke and Mr Lambis Englezos. Both these fine Australians persevered where many others would have been defeated. The pity is that throughout their persistence they have been denigrated as troublemakers and cranks. As far as I am concerned, they are nothing other than national heroes. The credo that we look after our own has had at times a very hollow ring to it. The corollary should be: when we are shamed into doing so. Putting that aside, we are grateful for the success of these two men and for the support that they eventually received.

At Fromelles, the recovery is nearing completion. The new cemetery near the local church is well advanced. The site faces north-west, across the former battlelines and to the right of the current site of Pheasant Wood. The completion date of 19 July 2010, in time for the formal ceremonial funeral service, is clearly achievable. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, with the support of the British and French governments, has done very well indeed. I understand that after remains have been sampled for DNA they will be buried in graves marked ‘Known only to God’. When identities are matched, headstones will be replaced with appropriate names and family inscriptions. This is the practice now when bodies are found and identified.

We know that sampling of the skeletal remains has also commenced. There seems to be some confidence that the anthropological work has been able to distinguish a large number as Australians. The proximity of badges and other material clues with the remains have made this possible. Further, we have been informed that the DNA sampling has also commenced and that testing is about to begin. This follows the conclusion from a sample of remains. An agreement between governments was made for the purposes of assessing the viability of DNA testing and ascertaining whether it is indeed practical. We are also cautioned that the varying conditions of the burial pits will result in equally varying ability to extract viable DNA. It was found during the preliminary excavation that some of the burial pits were very wet and others much drier. Therefore, the effect on the clay is likely to result in quite different outcomes. Inevitably, it seems there will be some disappointment. Of course, not all remains will be identified. While 1,400 people have registered on the Defence website as potential DNA matches, it seems the success rate might be quite small. Nevertheless, the important fact is that matching has become a commitment and it is now up to the DNA specialists.

There has been one disappointment in this process from beginning to end, as I have watched with close personal interest, and that is what seems to be the most petty jealousy between the academics and associated interests. The origins of this seem to me to have been the awarding of the original trial excavation contract to Glasgow University Archaeological Research Division, or GUARD. This was managed by both the Australian Department of Defence and their British counterparts without tender. While tendering guidelines may have allowed for this, inevitably it upset opposing competitive interests. The campaign of derision from the unsuccessful tenderers continued throughout that contract, with tame journalists in tow. It persisted even after the successful results were released. The great irony was that when the contract was finally let for the recovery task the critics won. With a contract much bigger and more extensive, the critics from Oxford and their previously very vocal associates won. The boot, as they say, was on the other foot. Surprise, surprise—what we have seen in the media in recent weeks has been a counterattack by the Glasgow supporters, alleging all sorts of shortcomings. The key evidence has been attributed to a Belgian who is not even an archaeologist.

All of this criticism has been denied and by the most respectable of relevant experts. The project seems to be very successful and on track. We can only suggest that the media stories might be a case of sour grapes—really a great pity, as all those with a deep interest in this project have to date behaved with impeccable professionalism. I do not wish to buy into arguments, as they seem to be ill-informed to some extent. At the behest of the current successful interest group, this made for good news material. The pity is that the controversy has trivialised what has been, from beginning to end, an outstanding and difficult project. This is, after all, a matter of great national consequence. Over 60,000 Australians died in World War I. A further 60,000 are said to have died as a result of their injuries and illness in the 15 years after 1918. The controversy between these rival camps of archaeologists is therefore demeaning and disrespectful. It might make for a good short-term headline for the journalistic hack but ultimately it is offensive and embarrassing.

This has been a project followed carefully by many Australians with a keen interest in the topic. It includes all those descendants who might eventually find out where their great-uncle or grandfather lies in peace. I certainly look forward to further news of the recovery being completed. I also look forward to hearing about the progress of the DNA testing and matching, and the commemoration on 19 July next year at Fromelles. I encourage those who are not aware of this project to log on to the website at media@CWGC.org. There, the latest news is available, and the website is regularly updated. Again, may I commend all those who brought this project to its final stages. May I also say how pleased I am to have been associated with it in some small way.