Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Barton for moving this motion, but I am still not clear about what the Labor Party will do to facilitate his motion. Perhaps the Labor Party’s position on this should be spelt out a little more clearly. My opening remarks on this motion will concern not only the contribution of those who served in Korea—both pre and post armistice—but also the contribution of all those Australians in past and present conflicts and those who will serve in the future. Every individual soldier, male and female, performs a vital role in Australia’s defence and makes a great contribution. Such a contribution has to be acknowledged in a way that distinguishes combat service as distinct from service in a non-warlike environment. Service in combat requires the highest order of personal commitment and sacrifice, and a grateful nation should be prepared to recognise appropriately that degree of calling. But it is unfair to compare one conflict with another, as they all have their unique and distinct qualities separating them.

When I was first approached by the Korean veterans, I understood exactly why they were seeking recognition for their comrades in arms. Their determination in seeking to right a perceived wrong is commendable, and I was prepared to assist them in any way that I could. I commend the government—the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the previous parliamentary secretary, Fran Bailey—for respecting the desires of the Korean veterans by investing in a process that explored their claims at arms length. It is only right and proper that such an examination was accorded. The appointed review panel dutifully explored the issues thoroughly and drew conclusions.

As you have heard, Ian Crawford, Garry Nehl, Gordon Jones and Colleen Thurgar, who made up the panel, were eminently qualified to explore thoroughly all the issues—and this they did. Their examination of the claims—to paraphrase their report—was conducted in a way that was open, public and impartial. The recommendations reflected their understanding of and belief in the laws and conventions that guided the awarding of suitable recognition to those who served in the Australian forces in post-armistice Korea. But at the end of the day there has to be a final arbiter—and in this the laws and conventions that guide our nation fulfilled that role, as they always must.

I have no issue with the need to improve the transparency and reviewability of the medal system’s rule-making process. People’s values do change over generations, and no man-made law or procedural convention is infallible. But change must come about for a legitimate and moral purpose, not simply as an imperative of a prevailing opinion. The provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act are based on the notion of due distinction for warlike service. To extend entitlements of this act to non-warlike service simply dilutes the contributions of those who served in a combat environment, and I certainly cannot support that.

The panel recommended that a special medal be struck to recognise post-armistice service. On the surface, I can see some logic, but in doing so we are creating another medal, thereby diluting the significance of existing medals struck for the purpose. The post-armistice servicemen would be entitled to the Australian Service Medal with bar ‘Korea’. By definition, they would not be entitled to the Australian Active Service Medal. Some received the Returned from Active Service Badge, in accordance with the repatriation provisions as they existed at the time. But that in itself is not an acceptance of service in warlike conditions, even though the dangerous circumstances that existed at the time are fully acknowledged.

The government has accepted the view of the reviewing panel that post-armistice service in Korea did not constitute warlike conditions. So I see the recommendation for the striking of another medal somewhat incongruous. However, if the desire amongst veterans for dual medalling becomes compelling, it is a matter that should be explored down the track. I would certainly be willing to proceed with that. As for a review of the medal system, there is nothing wrong in pursuing a policy of finessing provisions in any area of law.

I respect entirely the motives of these Korean veterans in seeking redress, as I respect my colleagues on the other side for raising this debate. Of course we want to accord the recognition that is deserved—and in bucketloads—but we do not want to do that at someone else’s expense. The integrity of qualifying service must be maintained, and the philosophy upon which it was based, born after the Great War, has served Australian service men and women very well. (Time expired)

See this speech in context