Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Can I begin by tipping my hat, or, more accurately, saluting the member for Braddon for that remarkable contribution and also the member for Herbert. I also would like to express my concern for the many serving personnel and veterans who are living with the scars of their service, in particular the physical and psychological trauma and the severe mental illness that they battle every day and that we in this place should be looking for every opportunity to help with and to serve. My heart also goes out to the great many families, friends and loved ones of the hundreds of serving personnel and veterans who have suicided.

As a veteran of 20 years in the Army myself, most as an infantry officer, I believe I have a very privileged insight into this issue. I, like my ex-military colleagues in this place, have been witness to the tragedies of service. I stand here not as a veteran but, for starters, as the son of World War II veteran who spent two years in Europe as a tail gunner on Lancaster bombers, who did a remarkable 32 missions over occupied Europe when the life expectancy for tail gunners was three missions and who for the rest of his life battled demons, including the demons that I saw as his son when he was alive and I was alive. I stand here also as the brother of a Vietnam veteran, my late brother Joe. He also battled demons from the day he returned to Australia to the day he died of cancer. I remain quite affected by what happened at his wake, when the surviving members of his signals squadron were there to honour my late brother. I remember asking one of the veterans: 'Are there many members of your squadron here?' He said, 'No, no. Most members of the squadron are dead, mostly from cancer and from suicide.' Of course, we didn't treat our veterans from Vietnam at all well, and much has been said about that since, but we do have an opportunity here today to chart a new course to look after our surviving veterans and serving personnel so much better.

I stand here also as an MP who, like my colleagues, I'm sure, has spoken to many parents, friends and loved ones of serving soldiers and veterans who have suicided. We've heard all of their stories firsthand, and I would hope that everyone in this place understands that although we might disagree on what to do about suicide we should at least all be trying to do our best to address the alarming suicide rate among serving members and veterans. In fact, just last week I was at an event where there was a veteran who was shaking almost uncontrollably as he was talking to me—strength to him. I won't say more about who that was, but strength to him. If he hears this speech, he'll know I'm talking about him. There's a very fragile, very damaged man. He's a good example of the sort of man we should be trying to help.

Given what I've seen, I'm regrettably not at all surprised by the statistics. The statistics have been spoken about at some length in this place already, but, just as a reminder: a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found 432 serves or ex-serving members died by suicide between 2001 and 2017. In 2018 alone, 33 died by suicide. And they are only the men and women that we know of.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in its third annual report, found that, once out of the ADF, men are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide than their civilian male counterparts. These are shocking figures. These might have been the figures from after the First World War, they might have been the figures from after the Second World War and they might have been the figures after the Vietnam War, but they shouldn't be the figures after the wars in the Gulf or in South Asia or after the peacekeeping operations everywhere from Cambodia to East Timor and the Pacific Islands. They shouldn't be the figures.

I should add, the figures often include people who are still serving and people who have departed the ADF but didn't see operational service. We should remember that, even in peacetime and in training, there are rigors in the ADF, which people who have not served would struggle to understand. I say to serving members and to veterans who didn't see operational service: 'We in this place are also thinking of you and looking at ways to help you. You have also put on a uniform. You have also served. You have also seen and done things that are completely unlike anything that happens in civvy street. We understand that you have many, many challenges too.'

I did salute the member for Braddon, but, regrettably, I'm going to have to disagree with him about the merits of this commission. I am an advocate for a royal commission. I think these bills are a missed opportunity for a detailed and comprehensive review of Defence and veteran suicide. For a start, the powers of the commissioner as laid out in the legislation simply do not go far enough, nor is the commissioner independent enough. Indeed, by its statutory nature the commissioner will be restricted by the legislation and simply not have the inherent flexibility that an ad hoc inquiry like a royal commission would have. Moreover, the commissioner sits within a government department, so we'd end up with the ludicrous situation of the government effectively, and repeatedly, investigating itself. Clearly a commissioner has to be independent and has to be seen to be independent, not embedded in a government department.

Moreover, the restrictions in this legislation will have the effect of denying friends and families the ability to adequately inquire into the root causes and contributory factors of the death of their loved ones. In other words, this legislation would be a bandaid to a much broader and in-depth issue. It would appear to some people to address a challenge but not actually address it, so, in some ways, it would be worth them doing nothing at all. In other words, we need to go straight to the best solution and not find ourselves stuck with an unsatisfactory solution.

It's no wonder so many members of the community, including myself, have long lobbied for a royal commission. I would hazard a guess that every member in this place and probably every senator in the other place has received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls and had interactions on footpaths—maybe thousands of them. Between the lot of us, I reckon we have received many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of communications from members of the community. The community knows what the problem is. The community knows what the solution is. I think we should be listening to the community. That's our job: to represent them and to represent the people who have the lived experience and have great insight and can help us to understand what the best solution is, and that is a royal commission.

A royal commission would have broad terms of reference and it would have the flexibility to strike out in unforeseen lines of inquiry. A royal commission would be able to compel witnesses to appear. A royal commission would be able to refer people to the justice system in some cases when that's warranted. A royal commission would have a clear end date. A royal commission would make powerful recommendations for reform that couldn't be ignored and which would provide some surety that veterans would be better supported and protected in the future. And, unlike the commissioner as envisaged by the government, a royal commission would deliver its findings in the media spotlight and hold hearings often in the media spotlight, rather than in some annual report to parliament dropped at half past four on a Thursday afternoon, which too often results in difficult issues being watered down or, worse, swept under the carpet.

I do acknowledge that the people who favour a commission see merit in the fact that it would exist for as long as this place decides it would exist—for years or decades. I do see merit in that, but I think we need to have a lightning-bolt response at the start, right now, with a royal commission ordered as quickly as possible, to report as soon as it can, to come up with recommendations that can be implemented and to save lives now and in the short term. But then I do envisage some sort of standing arrangement that would come out of the royal commission that could provide support for serving personnel and veterans for years to come. So I do see some merit in that, but, as I've described, I think we need what I'll call a lightning-bolt response initially to jolt everyone and everything into action and with solutions. Then we can talk about perhaps something like the commissioner on an ongoing basis beyond that. So maybe we need a hybrid model.

I do ask the government and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to look afresh at this issue. I expect that the legislation will go through this place. It will go through the Senate. We will have a commissioner. But I say to the government and to the minister: don't think the job is done, because we won't have had that lightning bolt. We still need that. There is still time for that. In the event of a change of government at the next election, I would hope the next government would revisit this matter. That's what the community wants and that's our job: to represent the community and to represent and help people in uniform and people who have taken their uniform off and are on civvy street now doing their best to battle with their demons. At the end of the day, it is all about them. It is all about our service personnel, both those in uniform and veterans. It is all about the people who have put on a uniform to serve the country, whether they have seen operational service or not. Many of them are battling demons, and it is our job serve them the very best we can. So far, we are letting them down and we are letting down their loved ones, who are calling out for a royal commission.

See this speech in context