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

As chair of the government’s defence and veterans affairs policy committee, I take a keen interest in veterans’ affairs issues. I would like to thank the member for Maribyrnong for his representation yesterday on behalf of Mr Kevin Lee. Naturally, I made some inquiries on this issue. Mr Sercombe made quite a reasonable connection with the morale within the Australian Defence Force. I would add, particularly for those deployed in operations or those who have served for extended periods, that there is recognition of this service through the awarding of medals. He highlighted the absolute agreed need for justice, fairness and proper process. He then made a representation on behalf of Mr Kevin Lee.

Unfortunately, Mr Sercombe went on to accuse those who have progressively dealt with Mr Lee’s case as being a source of ‘intensive bureaucratic mucking around’ and as being guilty of an unwillingness to have a substantial look at Mr Lee’s case. He characterised those responsible for this unenviable task as ‘boffins and brass’ within the defence establishment. None of those accusations or slurs is accurate or indeed fair. Nothing Mr Sercombe said in this case can be further from the truth.

Mr Lee is seeking the award of the long service and good conduct metal. Two key points apply. The first is that, for a person to qualify for this significant award, they must have served 15 years with continuous very good character and have been recommended by the captain of their ship. The second related issue is the determination and recording of the assessment of the person’s character over this 15-year period. Mr Lee was not so assessed in 1955 and has been trying to reverse the presumed cause of this for many years. Additionally, he was not recommended by his captain in that year.

In 1955 Mr Lee was convicted of two serious offences. Those offences were assault occasioning actual bodily harm and committing an act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline. Initially arrested by the royal military police and handed to the Japanese civil authorities, he was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Navy to be dealt with. He was convicted of both offences and sentenced to 60 days detention. Mr Lee has sought on six occasions to have the conviction overturned. On each occasion the matter has been considered, and advice tendered to both Mr Lee and those who have represented him has consistently stated that there is no legal basis or mechanism for his conviction to be overturned.

In essence, in the absence of substantial and compelling evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that the disciplinary proceedings brought against Mr Lee at the time were correct. Without evidence to the contrary, it is difficult to presume that a view from 51 years past would be less accurate than a view at this time. Further, Mr Lee has sought to distance himself from the actual assault and injury effected. Again, legal advice is that his acknowledgement of his involvement implicates him as being involved and, accordingly, he shares the same common criminal purpose as the other offenders. Further to this, regardless of whether the conviction might be reversed— (Time expired)