Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

On 18 August 1966, a small but brave band of Australians went out on patrol from Nui Dat to find themselves caught in the middle of an ambush by an estimated force of 2½ thousand Viet Cong and regular Vietnamese soldiers. That Australian force numbered barely 100 and, in the dire fighting and hours that followed, 18 Australians lost their lives. It was estimated at the end of the fighting the next day that somewhere in the order of 245 Vietnamese had died in that battle, with a number of other wounded having been taken from the battlefield.

The valour displayed by those Australian soldiers was truly in the highest traditions of Australian service personnel. In the face of overwhelming odds, numerically about 100 facing 2½ thousand, that they could maintain their order and their focus, stand their ground and survive, is a truly remarkable thing. It should be recorded that they had wonderful support from the New Zealand artillery battery, who very accurately brought fire to the positions that were called in, which were literally on top of the Australian soldiers in what was very close combat.

It was a great honour for me 10 years ago to attend the 30th anniversary commemorations of the Battle of Long Tan at the Enoggera Army Barracks in my electorate, which is the home of 6RAR, the unit involved. I was again humbled to attend the 40th anniversary services that were conducted about a fortnight ago on the day following the resolution moved in this parliament by the Prime Minister. To see those veterans, a few of whom I have come to know in the 10 years in between, is always a good thing. They are wonderful Australians. When their nation called them to duty, irrespective of what their views may have been about the conflict, they answered the call and performed as extremely capable professional soldiers, and did us all proud.

Therefore, it really does sadden me to see that here we are, on the 40th anniversary, still unable as a parliament to properly ensure that the awards for those involved in that battle are recognised. Some people do not know the history of this issue of medals for the Battle of Long Tan. It was a matter of surprise to those involved in the Battle of Long Tan that the awards that were given were of a lower level than that recommended by the commander in the battle, Harry Smith. I have spoken to Harry, and he and I have exchanged a number of emails over the years. It was not until 1996 that the reasons for that became clear. The year 1996 is important in this matter not because that is when the Howard government was elected but rather because it was the 30th anniversary of the battle, and the 30-year rule on the disclosure of documents enabled previously secret documents to be made public.

For the first time, at the end of 1996 the veterans of the Battle of Long Tan were able to see the documents and to find out why it was that the awards that were meant to be given, that were recommended by the commander in the battle, were never given. They were able to find out why it was that higher awards were given to senior officers who did not fire a shot in the battle and who arrived in one case—in fact, certainly in one case and I think in both cases—at the end of the column of armoured vehicles that brought the relief. Those people who did not fire a shot in anger nor had one shot fired at them managed to receive the highest awards for that battle. The soldiers who stood in the mud and the rain as their comrades fought for their lives and as they fought for their own lives, and who were the heroes of that encounter, found themselves receiving lesser awards. After the 30-year rule allowed these documents to be seen, they discovered that in fact the recommendations of the battlefield commander were never pursued. An alternative document was created recommending lesser awards for those in the battle. Those lesser awards in one case included a mention in dispatches, which is a totally honourable award for someone to receive.

The thing that has stuck in the craw of many of these veterans, and I have to say in mine as well, is that in exactly the same list of awards in which those Long Tan medals were listed, the postal clerk in Vung Tau got a mention in dispatches as well. I am sure he did a good job but to suggest that he should receive the same medal, the same award, that one of the heroes of the Battle of Long Tan received beggars belief.

This saga has been going on for 10 years. I had a look at some of the occasions on which I have raised this matter. I raised it in a question without notice to then Minister Bronwyn Bishop in April 1998; I raised it in a detailed question to the next minister in December 1999; I spoke about it in debates in this parliament in November 2003, March 2004, December 2004 and May 2005. I have asked further questions about it. I again made a speech referring to it on 15 June. And I am standing here again doing the same thing.

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary, when the government decided—and I think very rightly—to have a formal reception here, I thought now would be the time to address these matters, that finally some justice would prevail for those brave souls and they would get the recognition that in fact was recommended but had been denied them. When the Prime Minister started to talk about the medals, I thought: ‘Good. I’ll be the first to hop up and congratulate the government on doing the right thing, as somebody who has stood in this place on many occasions to chastise and criticise them for doing the wrong thing.’ But it did not happen. Not only did it not happen but the Prime Minister, in my view, rubbed salt into the wound. His comments were grossly offensive. At the end of the Prime Minister’s remarks he said:

... I would like to frankly explain to the House the difficulty of opening up in the manner requested this particular set of recommendations—

I thought, ‘Okay, let’s hear the reason.’ No reason followed. This is what the Prime Minister said next:

without also legitimately opening up others, indeed in relation to battles stretching back to World War II and in respect of relatives from battles stretching back to World War I ...

So the Prime Minister’s reason for not doing the right thing, for not doing what everybody who has looked at this over the last 10 years—since the documents were available to be seen—knows should be done, was to say that because there might be an injustice from World War II or even World War I, heaven forbid, we might have to fix two problems and not one. The thing in all of this that absolutely astounds and offends me is that this nation under a coalition government—the Prime Minister’s government was in office at the time—thought it was a good thing to send troops off to this battle but not to treat them decently afterwards.

You have a situation now where these people have been denied justice for 40 years. For the last 10 years they have known why they were denied justice, and the Prime Minister’s answer is, ‘We can’t give them justice because it will set a precedent.’ You know what, Prime Minister? These veterans are not asking you or this parliament to do the things this parliament asked them to do. As members of parliament we do not have to put our lives at risk. We do not have to stand in harm’s way. We do not have to take a bullet or see our lifelong friends die in front of us. We do not have to spend years away from our families in the mud and the rain in a war in South Vietnam which we may or may not have thought was a good idea. They do not want you, Minister and Prime Minister, to do the things that they had to do; all they want is for you to just have the guts to stand up and do the right thing.

Do you know what the government’s response was as recently as two weeks ago? They said that it was too hard because it might set a precedent and maybe someone who fought in World War I or World War II has the same problem. If there is someone from World War II or World War I who suffered the same injustice, fix it, too. Do not hide behind some bureaucratic mumbo jumbo and pretend that precedent somehow prevents this parliament from righting a wrong.

How hypocritical of the government to welcome those veterans here, to laud the work of those 100 who stood in the Battle of Long Tan, and then squib out of it and not have the guts to say, ‘We’re going to fix the problem with your medals.’ You could have at least set up an inquiry. If the minister, the government and the Prime Minister are not willing to take the decision now—and I think they should; in my opinion there is enough evidence already—at least set up an inquiry and let someone else look at it.

I mentioned a series of questions I have asked and speeches I have made about this for some years. In 1999 I asked a series of detailed questions, the last of which was to the minister at the time:

What action will he take to ensure that Lt Col. Smith’s original recommendations for Military Cross awards to be given to his Platoon Commanders is now acted on.

The minister’s response in writing was: ‘None.’ That was the response from the minister then; that is the response now, except they have also been given a few mealy-mouthed words. As parliamentarians we do not have to do the same courageous things that those soldiers did for us but we should at least have the decency to make sure that they are acknowledged for what they did.

No-one between 1966 and the disclosure of these documents in 1996, bar the handful involved in the activity, could have known what transpired. So this is not a business of laying blame on someone in 1966 or anywhere between then and 1996. Indeed, I am willing to give the government a year or two years grace to look through the stuff after they became aware of the problems in 1996. But that was 10 years ago. In 1999 the official response to my question, ‘What are you going to do to fix it?’ from the minister of the day was, ‘Nothing.’

That is what has been happening for the last 10 years. It is not good enough. It is an enormous affront for anybody who has a shred of decency or even moral consistency to stand in the Great Hall and applaud and welcome the veterans, as we did, and not to turn around and, with strong commitment and vigour, defend their right to receive awards which should have been provided by the government 40 years ago but were not. Let us put the past in the past and recognise the wrong.

I hope that out of this 40th anniversary a couple of things happen. I do hope all Australians understand that, whenever a conflict occurs, whether we think as a matter of politics and policy that it is right or wrong for Australia to deploy its troops to that theatre of war—whatever the politics and policy may be—we all must commit to supporting our troops to ensure their safety and return as soon as possible. I hope that reflection on what happened in Vietnam becomes ingrained in our minds, because what happened to the Vietnam veterans is a blight on our history. They were not treated with the respect they deserved when they returned.

I hope the other thing that comes out of it, particularly now, when the Battle of Long Tan really does come to mind as one of the major recent battles that Australian troops have been involved in, is that the troops who served under Harry Smith in that battle get the awards that they were recommended for. It can be done, and the only thing standing in the way is the will of this government.

It is time to put an end to the mealy-mouthed comments that we have heard for 10 years. It is now time to have the guts to do that. As I said earlier, we are not being asked to put our lives on the line as those soldiers were. We have the easy job. We just have to do what we know is right—put our hand up and vote for something that we know is right. That is what the government should do, and until they do it I intend to continue to pursue it as vigorously as I possibly can.

See this speech in context