Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this motion and to associate myself with the comments of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. Australia provided the third biggest force amongst the allies in the Vietnam War, after of course the United States and South Vietnam itself. At its peak, we had 7,672 service people in Vietnam. In total, between 1962 and 1973, 59,000 Australians served in Vietnam—520 of these lost their lives and approximately 3,000 were wounded. There are approximately 50,000 of those 59,000 who are still with us today.

As has been said by others, the Vietnam War was different to other wars. It was different for a number of reasons. It was different because of the manner of fighting. It was different because ambush was a much more important tactic in the Vietnam War than perhaps in other wars that we have faced. It was different because the climate of war was different, because we were engaging in a guerrilla war against an enemy who knew their own country much better than we did. It was different because of the use of chemicals. Of course, chemicals were used in World War I, but it has been unusual to see them used in more recent conflagrations. Chemicals were used substantially in the Vietnam War—not necessarily with the intention of killing people but with that result.

It was also different because our veterans were not honoured in the way they should have been when they returned. Much has been said about that. It is true to say that even veterans say they do not need an apology. I agree that they do not need an apology; they are owed one. They are not owed one just by the people who opposed the Vietnam War. Nobody should apologise for opposing the Vietnam War. It was a point of view that people were entitled to have, and indeed many veterans of the Vietnam War now say that they view the war as not having been worth the effort or the sacrifice that was made by so many Australians and people from other nations. But people should apologise if they did not support our veterans or if they were involved in denigrating our veterans when they returned from Vietnam. As the honourable member for Cowan has said, that applies equally to people who supported the Vietnam War and people who opposed it.

But apologies are not enough. We need to give better support to our Vietnam veterans. An apology is hollow unless we back it up with action. Veterans in my community tell me they feel it is tougher to get a TPI pension, and in fact the government’s own figures back up this assertion. They show an eight per cent reduction in the number of total and permanent incapacity pensions over recent years. So, when our veteran community is getting older and presumably sicker and is in greater need of TPI pensions, we find an eight per cent reduction in the number of those pensions being granted. Of course, the TPI pension has decreased in value by $80 a fortnight since 1997 compared to other pensions, because of a change in the indexation method that was put into place for those pensions.

So, compared to other service pensions and compared to the age pension, veterans on the TPI pension are being disadvantaged—and they are people who should never be disadvantaged. They have made very great sacrifices for our nation. I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, as would others, that these people should not be disadvantaged; but they are being disadvantaged by $80 a fortnight. That is a significant figure. It is not something that should be trifled with and we need to be doing better.

Not only soldiers but also nurses, airmen and sailors served in Vietnam. I have a notice of motion in the House about the service of sailors in particular. We all know that the Vietnam veterans have a higher mortality rate than that of the general population, but perhaps what honourable members might not appreciate is that those who served in the Royal Australian Navy have the highest mortality rate. They have a higher mortality rate than those who served in the Army and the Air Force.

A 2002 report by the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology found that the method of providing drinking water to sailors on Royal Australian Navy ships in Vietnam made it likely that dioxins had contaminated the water—and there, perhaps, we have an explanation for that very high mortality rate amongst veterans of the Royal Australian Navy.

I am very privileged to have residing in my electorate a seaman from the HMAS Sydney—which transported many thousands of troops to Vietnam—Mr Jess James. He and others who live in and close to my electorate have raised this issue with me. I think it is incumbent on the government to do better when it comes to supporting those Royal Australian Navy veterans who are suffering ill health effects so many years later because the water provided to them to drink when they were in harbour in Vietnam was not adequately cleaned.

I would like to say a few words about the effect on the partners—in particular, the wives—of Vietnam veterans. In my electorate I have been very lucky to meet a number of partners of Vietnam veterans through the Nepean Vietnam veterans partners and widows support group—and a finer group of women you could never hope to meet. I was introduced to them by Judy Shepherd, and I have attended several of their meetings. Earlier this year, I took my honourable friend the member for Cowan to meet with them. He was very impressed with them, and they with him. They provide a valuable role in supporting each other through the trials of being a partner of a Vietnam veteran.

Vietnam veterans suffer increased mortality rates and increased rates of suicide and mental illness, and that of course has an effect on their partners. Health studies on Vietnam veterans have shown that their partners have been adversely affected. Two-thirds of partners of Vietnam veterans attending post-traumatic stress disorder clinics were found to be very severely distressed. This was recently reported by Professor Hedley Peach in the Australian Family Physician magazine.

We need to be doing better by their partners. We also need to be doing better by their children. To people who are not familiar with these issues, this may appear at first glance to be somewhat of a stretch. Why should the children of Vietnam veterans receive any government assistance or support? The case for it is very strong indeed. Out of 100 children of Vietnam veterans, between six and nine of them have been in a situation where both their parents—because of the impact on the partners, which I referred to—have suffered mental illness. During their childhood, they have had not just one parent but both parents suffering mental illness. That compares to one in 100 in the wider population.

Perhaps most disturbing is the suicide rate of children of Vietnam veterans: it is three times higher than that of the general population. You do not need to be a genius to work out why. Their fathers and mothers have suffered much distress because of their service to our country—for doing what our country and government asked them to do—and they are now paying a price.

I want to take this opportunity to call on the government to lift the age limit for those children of Vietnam veterans seeking assistance through the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. It is impossible at the moment to receive assistance from that service if you are over 36. Of course, many of the children of Vietnam veterans are now over 36, and they should not be cut off from that service just because they have passed some arbitrarily set limit which says: ‘Now you are 36, you are on your own. You are not entitled to suffer mental grief anymore. You are not entitled to be suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome or any of the associated traumas that go with that. You are now on your own.’ I do not think that is good enough. I call on the government and the minister—whose genuine interest and commitment to these issues I acknowledge and respect—to lift that age limit so that the children of Vietnam veterans are not placed on their own.

In the time available to me, I would like to say a few things about the Battle of Long Tan, the anniversary of which this chamber is considering today. Important battles are very significant in understanding Australian history, but they are also an inspiration to others facing adversity. Long Tan has joined Kokoda, Tobruk and Gallipoli as a great inspiration to all Australians who are facing difficult circumstances. Recently in my electorate I hosted a film night and tribute to the veterans of Kokoda. It was launched by General Peter Cosgrove, who accepted my invitation and the invitation of the member for Chifley to launch the event. Many people were moved by what they heard that night. I will soon be doing something similar with respect to the Battle of Tobruk. The Battle of Long Tan has a similar message: people who were massively outnumbered and who, on any objective analysis, could not have been expected to win that battle, showed courage and perseverance and—as the Vietnam veterans from the other side recently acknowledged—won that battle.

I want to refer briefly to the controversy about the awarding of medals for the Battle of Long Tan. I do not propose to go into the details; they have been well traversed in other places. I note that the Prime Minister said, in moving this motion, that it was difficult for the government to fix this matter—and I acknowledge that. I do acknowledge that this is a difficult matter and that it is very hard to retrospectively correct the injustices of the past. But because it is difficult is not a reason not to do anything. I urge the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to seriously examine the injustices that have been perpetrated by the wrongful denial of appropriate medals for gallantry to the veterans of Long Tan and to fix the situation. I think all Australians would join in celebrating such a decision. It may go against the military grain and it may go against the tradition of not awarding medals retrospectively, but I think it is justified in this case.

Finally, I want to make a brief mention of not only Australian veterans of the Vietnam War but also the South Vietnamese veterans of the Vietnam War, many of whom reside in my electorate and perhaps more of whom reside in the electorate of my honourable friend the member for Fowler. There are thousands of them living in south-western Sydney, and I have met many of them. They are predominantly men. They have great passion for their country and served their country gallantly. I am thinking in particular of Dr Tien Nguyen, the Federal President of the Vietnamese Community in Australia, who served alongside Australian soldiers and United States soldiers in the South Vietnamese Army and now resides in south-western Sydney. I am thinking also of two others whom I have had the great honour to meet: veterans of the South Vietnamese forces who, after the war, served many years in labour camps in Vietnam because of their commitment to democracy.

The best way that we can honour those veterans and all veterans of the Vietnam War is to do all in our power to ensure that democracy does come to Vietnam. Because of the result of the Vietnam War, Vietnam has been under an oppressive regime for the last 40 years. The best way that we can honour those veterans is to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain and democracy is returned to Vietnam at the earliest opportunity. I know many veterans—South Vietnamese veterans, Australian veterans and, I am sure, United States veterans and other allies—would support that call.

See this speech in context