Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today in the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 to discuss a range of issues relating to the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio. I wish to bring to the attention of the parliament some of the anniversaries and circumstances currently relating to that area. Firstly, I would like to talk briefly about national service and particularly the fact that yesterday was ‘Nasho Day’. There have been a range of celebrations and commemorations occurring across the nation over the last week for the work that was done by national servicemen in two schemes, particularly post the Second World War, between 1951 and 1959, and between 1965 and 1972, when some 300,000 Australians served.

The 1951 scheme was introduced by the Liberal government of the time. It was the third such scheme that had existed in Australia since Federation. Eighteen-year-old men were required to partake. There were different ways that they could do their service. They could do 176 days of military training in a lump or as a mixture of regular Army service and serving with the then Citizens Military Forces. That scheme went through to 1959. Some 227,000 young Australians served over that time.

The scheme that is probably more in the public mind is that which existed between 1965 and 1972, under which many people who served eventually went to Vietnam. People would remember that in those circumstances a birthday ballot was used for 20-year-olds. People had to register and then took their chance in what was effectively a form of lottery. If they were selected, they went on to serve. It was normally for two years full time in the regular Army, then three years part time in the reserves. From 1965 to 1972, 19,450 national servicemen served in the Vietnam War, with 202 killed and 1,279 wounded. National servicemen also served in Malaysia and Borneo during the Indonesian confrontation.

The scheme was abolished on 5 December 1972, when Labor was elected to government. During that period from January 1965 to December 1972 some 63,000 national servicemen gave between 18 months and two years of full-time service. Many famous Australians were servicemen under this scheme—people like Bill Hayden, former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, Sir James Hardy, Dougie Walters and, of course, Normie Rowe.

For those who were involved, one thing the Australian government has done is to produce national service medals. Some 110,000 of those have been given out to a large number of national servicemen in recent times. In my own electorate, when ceremonies have been held to grant medals to a number of national servicemen, it has been interesting to talk to them about their experiences and what they actually did. I found that the experiences varied from activities done closer to home to what occurred overseas. It certainly gave one a real understanding—and I always hate to use the word ‘understanding’ when talking about veterans, because I know there is an awful lot that I do not understand about what many of them have been through. It certainly gave a sense of the very differing tasks that people undertook in the service of their country. We certainly owe them all a debt for that service, as well as our respect and thanks. It is always good to be able to acknowledge the work that they did on behalf of their country and the fact that they were prepared to serve when they were needed.

I also acknowledge that today, 15 February, marks the 64th anniversary of the fall of Singapore. The fall of Singapore represented the largest surrender of British-led military personnel in history. As we know, 15,000 Australians were there at the time. A total of 80,000 troops—Indian, Australian and British—became prisoners of war when Singapore fell. Singapore was often seen as being a fortress. In fact, it was also known as the Gibraltar of the Far East—impregnable and an underlying linchpin of the British defences in the region. But, as we now know, when you are expecting an attack from the sea and point your defences in that direction and the attack comes from the other way, things do not work so well. The nature of the Japanese advance down the Malay Peninsula certainly took the allies by surprise. It was a very speedy attack, and they were certainly very effective in prosecuting that attack.

I recently visited Singapore and looked at aspects of the defences there. I saw at first hand some of the historical monuments which relate to what occurred and also paid my respects at the cemetery. I think I gained some sense of what had occurred. It was certainly a major victory for the Japanese and a significant setback for the allies with respect to the conduct of the war. As we know, many thousands of Australians and other personnel were imprisoned. That led effectively to the establishment of the Changi prisoner of war camp.

Changi was quite an unusual prisoner of war camp because it was more of a series of camps located on the Changi peninsula. For visitors, there is a place to pay your respects in the form of a museum and a chapel. There have been a number of Changi chapels—there is one at Duntroon which I would urge members, if they get the chance, to go and look at. The chapel that is presently located at Changi has been moved on several occasions because Changi, for most of that period, has been an operating prison. It was effectively also a transit stop for many servicemen being taken across to Thailand for the building of the Thai-Burma railway—the death railway. Again, I urge members, if they ever have the chance to go there, to look at the museum there. It is funded by the Australian government and provides an excellent opportunity to gain some understanding of what our troops went through when constructing the railway. I found it an incredibly moving experience to go there and to view some of the works that were undertaken and to gain some sort of understanding of the enormous sacrifice made by many with respect to that construction.

I also had the opportunity to go to Taiwan. While I was there, I saw an exhibition on the prisoners of war who had been interned in Taiwan. I had not been aware, until just before I got there, that Australian officers above the rank of colonel had been moved to what was then known as Formosa from Changi as part of a relocation by the Japanese. It was interesting realising that there was an Australian connection to a place that many of us had not realised there had been in the context of World War II. But the Burma-Thailand railway is quite an amazing construction job and an amazing tale of human courage in adversity and savagery. If you link that back, as I have, to the fall of Singapore, it is a day which relates to that time.

The other anniversary that is coming up is this Sunday, 19 February, which marks the 64th anniversary of the first bombing raids on Darwin in World War II. Members would be aware that something like 243 lives were lost in Darwin and between 300 and 400 were wounded. On 19 February, 188 planes were launched against Darwin, a harbour that was at that stage full of ships. The first of two waves of aerial attacks began just before 10 am, and the city was devastated in the space of 40 minutes. Eight ships were sunk, two were beached and later refloated and many of the other 35 ships in the harbour were damaged by bombs or machine-gun fire. Darwin town and the RAAF aerodrome were also heavily damaged by the raid. A second raid of 54 bombers was launched two hours later on the same day.

The raids on 19 February were the first two of 64 raids against the Darwin area and its nearby airfields, which bore the brunt of Japanese attacks on mainland Australia. Of course, Darwin was not the only area that was attacked by air by the Japanese. Townsville, Katherine, Wyndham, Derby, Broome and Port Hedland were also bombed at various times. The final raid on Darwin took place on 12 November 1943 but, as I said, that was after some 64 raids over that period of time. When you go to Darwin, there are some areas you can look at that relate to that and give you an idea of what they went through in that area.

The other thing I wanted to mention today is a recent decision taken by the government which I was very pleased to see, and that was that the service of the Australian peacekeeping contingent in Rwanda be recognised by the government, beyond being hazardous, as being warlike. I spoke in the parliament on Monday to a motion regarding this matter and was very pleased to hear—in fact, while we were conducting the debate—that the government had made a decision to accept that particular suggestion that we had made. It has been a matter of debate for some time, and it has been a matter of real concern in the veterans’ community that what the peacekeepers went through with respect to the horrors of what occurred in Rwanda was deserving of recognition. I am very pleased to see that the government picked up on that.

It is a good start for the new minister, in the circumstances, to redress what was a wrong. I am on the record as saying it was a failure of policy from the Labor government when we were in government, but I also want to stress that we are talking about events in 1994 and 1995, and the full horror of what occurred at that time was not really understood until sometime since. It has certainly been understood, though, for a lot of years now. Although it is true to say that we made a mistake in the first place, I still believe it was a mistake that was understandable at the time, given what was known. I do not think that there is any excuse for the fact that action has not been taken over the years since that time, but I am very glad to see that the government has now moved on that particular issue.

I want to assure the minister that Labor will be bringing forward other initiatives that I hope he would also be prepared to look at in the months and year or so to come. We will be coming up with a number of suggestions for him about how we can better look after the interests of our diggers and ensure that they get a fair deal. I will have a few things to say about that over the months to come and I look forward to him being prepared to again, hopefully, pick up on some of the initiatives that we will be bringing forward.

In respect of that there is one issue that I would particularly like to talk about today and that relates to the issue of mental health problems in relation to the veterans’ community. We have to remember that, when we talk about those sorts of issues, it is not just the veterans who are affected; it is also the veterans’ families—their kids, their partners, their families. Their families are in a situation where, although they may not have served themselves, they have to deal with the consequences of service and the circumstances that that produces in relation to their lives. There is no doubt that when there have been examinations done of the circumstances of veterans’ families there are issues that need to be dealt with and dealt with properly.

When you are looking at mental health issues, you will find that some very disturbing statistics have come to light in recent years, particularly about the circumstances of veterans and their children. For example, in regard to the children of Vietnam veterans, it is established that they are three times more likely to commit suicide, 1.2 times more likely to die from illness and 1.8 times more likely to die by accident. They are frightening statistics about what is happening to a component of our population who are clearly suffering in a way that many of us have not had to deal with.

This country in many ways has grappled with the legacy of Vietnam in terms of how you actually deal with it and understand it. I have learnt a lot about that while being a member of parliament and I have learnt a lot about it in the last few months, but I do not pretend to understand all of it. However, I do understand that there is a requirement from government and political parties to grapple with what needs to be done to try and address some of those issues. At the moment, the current minister has on his desk, I believe, a report regarding the question of a full-blown feasibility health study of the children of Vietnam veterans. I urge the minister to consider that matter incredibly seriously. It is a matter which is in need of serious action. I am confident that the minister understands that because I believe he does have some understanding of the issues that we are talking about here today. I want to assure him that Labor is prepared to get behind such a study. Labor sees the need for it and wants to ensure that it actually occurs.

I will not go through some of the disturbing stories I have heard about the circumstances of veterans’ kids and their families, other than to say that there is absolutely no doubt that a study is needed. The detail needs to be worked out carefully and it has to be done. I hope this minister will see it as a priority in his time administering the portfolio. It will not be a quick study, because there are no quick solutions to the sorts of problems that veterans’ families have gone through. But it is something that needs to be done and it is something that needs to be taken care of by this government. We stand ready to support the government in terms of taking real and effective action to deal with these particular issues.

Looking at the question of the health of veterans themselves, again the statistics are appalling. We know that 30 per cent of Vietnam veterans report experiencing panic attacks, 31 per cent report suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, 41 per cent report anxiety disorders, 45 per cent report depression, about 30 per cent report a problem with alcohol and 30 per cent report their partners suffer from stress, anxiety or depression. Again, there are issues there that need to be addressed. There have been health studies in relation to the issues with veterans and there are more to come. There will be more issues that need to be dealt with.

With some of the recent debate with respect to mental health issues, it is clear that there is now a greater understanding in the community in a more general sense that mental health issues need to be taken seriously; that there are issues for government and for the community to deal with. I urge the parliament not to forget that a substantial component of what we are dealing with in relation to those mental health issues relates to the veterans’ community. These are not new problems. Over the years, veterans from wars have had these problems, and I guess there is a better understanding now than there was. In previous generations there were issues such as shell shock in terms of the First World War, and there was always that sense, ‘Uncle Bill, he was at the war. He’s a bit funny now.’ Now there is a better understanding of those sorts of problems and the sorts of implications that they have. It is something that the government has to look at. With respect to veterans’ families, the study that the minister has on his desk for consideration and for action needs to be embraced, and I would certainly urge him to do so.

See this speech in context