Senate debates

Monday, 27 March 2017

Questions without Notice

Veterans

2:34 pm

Photo of Brian BurstonBrian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is for the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Justice Mohr, a former Navy stoker who rose to become a major general and later a judge in the Supreme Court of South Australia, was perhaps the most appropriate person to conduct a review into warlike service and service entitlements and, as such, was appointed to conduct a review to be later known as the Mohr review. Because of his deep understanding of service life and his analytical skills, Justice Mohr found that either the Navy got it right and the Army and Air Force got it wrong or the opposite was true. By this I mean that, in correcting the allocation of servicemen to zones attributed to war service or active service, the Clarke review was accepted by the government because it allowed the deception to continue that combat troops were not deployed to hostile environments outside of Vietnam. Minister, can you advise the house why the government commissioned the Mohr review and the recognition of service for veterans in 2000 and then, when it did not like the outcome which was in favour of the veterans, commissioned the Clarke review in 2002?

2:35 pm

Photo of Marise PayneMarise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank Senator Burston for his question and for giving me some notice of that. I do recognise that this is a matter of significant interest for the senator and acknowledge the adjournment speech he gave to the Senate on this matter last week. All Australian Defence Force service is appropriately classified in accordance with the legislation and the policies that existed at the time of service. Defence is aware that there are claims of perceived anomalies with regard to classification of past service. Where these are brought to Defence's attention, they are investigated and remediated as appropriate.

I would say through you, Mr President, to the senator that the two reviews which are referred to in his question were indeed unrelated in scope. The Mohr review, to which he has referred, looked at claimed anomalies in respect of South-East Asian service from 1955 to 1975 with a focus on medallic recognition. Of the submissions received, written submissions totalled 750 and 400 oral submissions were made at public hearings. The comprehensive report was received, and it said:

Representatives of the major ex-Service organisations that made submissions to the Review indicated their general acceptance of its independence, and any subsequent recommendation.

The second review—the Clarke review of veterans' entitlements of January 2003—encompassed a review of repatriation legislation and some perceived anomalies in the entitlements legislation. It consulted extensively with the ex-service community, held many meetings between May and September of 2002 and considered over 3,000 submissions. It became, at the time, very clear to the committee that there was much misunderstanding about the system and the applicable legislation. The committee made 109 recommendations across the range of issues it considered in terms of those perceived anomalies, access to veterans entitlements and level of benefits and support provided to— (Time expired)

Photo of Stephen ParryStephen Parry (President) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Burston, a supplementary question.

2:37 pm

Photo of Brian BurstonBrian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Can the minister explain to the chamber why the government continues to take a position that soldiers deployed outside of Vietnam on war service or on active service but with the same rules of engagement as in Vietnam are not afforded the service entitlements consistent with soldiers who have been deployed on war service or on active service yet affords full war service entitlements to other who have served in Thailand and Diego Garcia?

Photo of Marise PayneMarise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | | Hansard source

I indicate to the senator that I am advised that there were no soldiers who deployed on war service or active service outside of Vietnam with the same rules of engagement as Vietnam who were not recognised in the same way as those who served in Vietnam.

Photo of Stephen ParryStephen Parry (President) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Burston, a final supplementary question.

2:38 pm

Photo of Brian BurstonBrian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Can the minister explain to the chamber when the government will move to correct the anomalies relating to service in Vietnam, Malaysia and East Timor by establishing an expert panel comprising of people who will consider the full evidence available? Of course, such a panel would exclude members from government or Defence.

Photo of Marise PayneMarise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | | Hansard source

I can advise the Senate that all those claimed anomalies in relation to ADF service, including those which have been raised by Senator Burston, have indeed been reviewed by independent committees. I have referred to the work of both the Clarke committee and the Mohr committee. While reviews have been established by the federal government, as they must be, they comprise independent experts outside of Defence. Just to reinforce that, the Mohr committee comprised Judge Mohr, as referred to by the senator, and Rear Admiral Pete Kennedy, AO, RAN, retired. The Clarke review, as well as having the Hon. John Clarke QC as the chair, had Air Marshal Douglas Riding, AO, DFC, and Dr David Rosalky. That is the constitution of those committees. I am happy as well—through you, Mr President—to offer Senator Burston a personal briefing, if that would be of assistance, from the relevant part of Defence.