Painting by Chris McClelland
Page: 22344
2 May 2006
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [5.10 p.m.]: I move:
In recognition of the year of the ninetieth anniversary of the Australian landing at Anzac Cove in Gallipoli and the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Pacific War, this House calls on the President to acknowledge the sacrifice made by Australian servicemen and women who gave their lives in defence of the freedom we enjoy today after the prayer at the beginning of each sitting week in the following terms:
‘I acknowledge the supreme sacrifice made by the servicemen and women who gave their lives on active service in defence of the freedom we enjoy in New South Wales today.’
‘I shall go back to Paris tomorrow and say to my countrymen; “I have seen the Australians; I have looked into their eyes. I know that they, men who have fought great battles in the cause of freedom, will fight on alongside us, till the freedom for which we are fighting is guaranteed for us and our future’.
A couple of months later, as the Australians prepared for another epic battle at Amiens, Monash sent a message to all of the 166,000 Australian troops in his corps:
‘For the first time in the history of this Corps, all five Australian Divisions will tomorrow engage in the largest and most important battle operation ever undertaken by the Corps.
‘They will be supported by an exceptionally powerful Artillery, and by Tanks and Aeroplanes on a scale never previously attempted. The full resources of our sister Dominion, the Canadian Corps, will also operate on our right, while two British Divisions will guard our left flank.‘
The many successful offensives which the Brigades and Battalions of this Corps have so brilliantly executed during the past four months have been the prelude to, and the preparation for, this greatest culminating effort.‘Because of the completeness of our plans and dispositions, of the magnitude of the operations, of the number of troops employed, and of the depth to which we intend to over-run the enemy’s positions, this battle will be one of the most memorable of the whole war; and there can be no doubt that, by capturing our objectives, we will inflict blows upon the enemy which will make him stagger, and will bring the end appreciably nearer.
‘I entertain no sort of doubt that every Australian soldier will worthily rise to so great an occasion, and that every man, imbued with the spirit of victory, will, in spite of every difficulty that may confront him, be animated by no other resolve than grim determination so see through to a clean finish, whatever his task may be.
‘The work to be done tomorrow will perhaps make heavy demands upon the endurance and staying powers of many of you; but I am confident, in spite of excitement, fatigue, and physical strain, every man will carry on to the utmost of his powers until his goal is won; for the sake of Australia, the Empire and our cause.
‘I earnestly wish every soldier of the Corps the best of good fortune, and glorious and decisive victory, the story of which will echo throughout the world, and will live forever in the history of our homeland.’
Approximately 12 hours after the start of the battle it was all over.
The Australians lost approximately 1,200 men out of an assault force of more than 100,000 under Monash’s command. They captured more than 6,000 Germans, 100 field artillery pieces, a complete train and hundreds of vehicles. It was a decisive victory attributed to Monash’s leadership and the fighting qualities of his Australian troops. Monash’s biographer, Roland Perry, recorded that by the time he ordered the last of his divisions out of the front line, leaving no Australians in the war, their job was done. Over the previous six months they had taken 29,144 prisoners and liberated 116 towns and villages over an area of 660 square kilometres. No-one knows precisely how many enemy were killed but 60,000 would be a conservative figure.
In that same period Australia lost 5,500 dead and had 24,000 casualties. They had taken on 39 German divisions and beaten every one of them, from the crack Prussian Guards, who fought to the last, to cobbled-together forces that ran when attacked. Long before the great German offensive of 21 March 1918 the Germans knew where the strength in the allied armies lay.
They were careful not to attack where Australian forces were in the front line. Indeed, one of the captured German documents advised that if they had known the Australians were their opponents they would not have defended Montbrehain. It was one of scores of such comments recorded by the end of this frantic period of annihilation for the Germans. They thought that the Australian style of fighting, whereby one rogue soldier, for reasons of bravado, courage, showmanship, competitiveness or just plain insanity after so long in combat, was nigh on impossible to counter. Man for man, the enemy was just as courageous as the Australians. But this element of apparent craziness, or even near-suicidal intent, defied the tenets of rigid German discipline and usually caught them off guard.
The initiative and courage of Lieutenant George Ingram was typical of these acts. During the Battle of Montbrehain on 5 October 1918, Ingram led a thrust against a German strongpoint and captured nine machine guns and 42 prisoners. He then led an attack against a position defended by 100 Germans armed with 42 machine guns. After capturing this position, he then went alone into Montbrehain in search of a sniper who had caused havoc among the British 139th brigade in its failed attempt to take the town the previous day. British soldiers had told Ingram that a sniper had picked off about 20 of their men as they advanced on some ruins in the town. Lieutenant Ingram went alone, as he wanted the element of surprise. He stalked his way into the town’s narrow streets around sharp, blind corners, waiting for fire that was aimed in the direction of his brigade. One location began to betray itself. The shots were not coming from an elevated position, which is where the unlucky forces had been looking.
After an hour of stealthy movement among the ruins, Ingram spotted the source. A machine gun was aimed out of a house’s cellar ventilator. Ingram crawled from the side of the cellar while firing was coming from it. When he was within a metre of it he stood up and fired his revolver into the ventilator, killing the sniper. Hearing other shocked German voices in the cellar, he dashed around to the back of the house, booted down the back door and bailed up 30 of the enemy. Ingram then waited coolly until his men entered the town. For this bravery he was awarded the Victoria Cross.
Monash’s strategies delineated the Australians from the rest of the allies. They marked a change in the way that war was conducted from a nineteenth century mentality whereby men were cannon fodder. Monash’s detailed command of the equipment, weaponry and all the technological accoutrements of war put his thinking perhaps a half a century ahead of his contemporaries. The other important difference was that he could put theory into practice, and he did it to devastating effect. On 5 August 1918 Prince Max von Baden, on behalf of the German Government, asked for an immediate armistice on land and water and in the air. It was the beginning of the end of the war and soon after Monash departed for a well-earned break in London.
When one reviews the outstanding achievements of our Diggers against the Germans it is perhaps easier to understand why the odd Australian of German descent would harbour such a benign hatred of our troops generations later.
Between the two world wars our political leaders failed us by demobilising and allowing our forces to run down to unsustainable levels. They relied on our relationship with Britain to bail us out if we got into trouble. Even when the war tocsin began to sound with Hitler’s rise in Nazi Germany and warnings of Japan’s expansionist aims were apparent as early as 1933 they continued in denial. In 1933 General Sturdee warned: Japan would pose the major threat to Australian security. He predicted:
‘The Japanese would act quickly, they would all be regulars, fully trained and equipped for the operations, and fanatics who liked dying in battle, whilst our troops would consist mainly of civilians, hastily thrown together on mobilisation, with very little training, short of artillery and possibly of gun ammunition.’
That is exactly what happened six years later. The Head of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University, Professor David Horner, recently wrote:
‘It is now generally agreed that the Australian defence policy between the wars and until the fall of Singapore was, at the best, naively optimistic, and at the worst, some might say, close to treason.’
Whilst our political leaders may have neglected their national insurance policy, at that time our Diggers answered the call—and the challenge.
When war finally broke out in 1939 we were totally unprepared and dispatched an expeditionary force to Europe and the Middle East to make our contribution to Empire defence in the vain hope that they would come to our aid if Japan entered the war in the Pacific region.
We now know that Churchill had other ideas, and the defence of Australia was not his priority. Our sycophantic political representatives were out of their league in trying to deal with Churchill and it took another great army leader, Monash’s former chief of staff, the much-maligned General Thomas Blamey, to stand up against him. Blamey would not allow Australian soldiers to fight piecemeal under British command, as Churchill wanted; he would only allow them to fight as Australian units under Australian command.
As a result of Blamey’s strong stand, Australia’s fighting reputation, established on the beaches of Gallipoli and the fields of France, was re-established at places such as Tobruk and El Alamein.
It was the Australians at Tobruk who inflicted the first land defeat on one of the great German Commanders, General Erwin Rommel, which probably further reinforced the feeling of hatred that the odd Australian of German descent has against our troops. When Japan entered the war with the bombing of Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941 we were at our most vulnerable, with all of our regular forces still stationed in Europe and the Middle East. The Japanese were deemed to be invincible.
In eight weeks the overpowering Japanese invasion forces had destroyed the United States Navy in Pearl Harbour and sunk the British battleships in the China Sea. The Japanese had captured Hong Kong and half of China and forced the British Navy to abandon Singapore. They defeated the United States Army in the Philippines and the British Army in Malaya. They had occupied Indonesia and sunk the Dutch fleet in the Java Sea.
Australians experienced that terrible fear of imminent invasion. We faced the loss of our homes and our country. Many had turned to prayer as a last resort for their safety. Only the 8th Division AIF and two cruisers stood between the Japanese invaders and Australia. Australia needed three months to bring her fighting men from the Middle East and organise the assistance of two divisions of United States of America Marines to enable us to meet the advancing Japanese. The 8th Australian Division gave Australia those three months!
They were volunteer soldiers, equipped only with small arms. They manned Australia’s foremost defences, a thinly held line stretching from Malacca in the west to Rabaul in the east. With only a rifle and bayonet they faced the heavy artillery, the dive bombers and the large tanks of the invasion armies. They fought to the finish in Johore and Singapore, in Ambon, Timor and New Britain. They fought desperately, with one thought in mind: that these Japanese must never be allowed to land in Australia. Despite the gallant efforts of the 8th Division the Japanese continued with their operations and landed on Australian territory in New Guinea in July 1942.
They had been turned back on two invasions attempts, in the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway, and then tried an overland invasion over the Kokoda Trail.
During the Kokoda campaign the Australians met the Japanese. Our soldiers were outnumbered, outgunned, out-trained—but they absorbed everything the Japanese could throw at them. They were pushed right back to the last line of defence, where they rallied and then forced the Japanese back across the track. That was the only time in our history that our territory has been invaded. Our soldiers recaptured Kokoda and raised the Australian flag on 3 November 1942. There were no British, no Americans, no Kiwis; it was purely an Australian operation. Some of the reports that have come out recently give one the feeling of what they went through and the sacrifices they made along the track. Lieutenant Doug McLean said:
‘The Japs were in deep dugouts protected with thick logs at ground level separated by other logs just to allow the weapons to protrude … providing a field of fire for the one hundred and eighty degrees facing the scrub. Now our troops as they attacked were hit in the lower leg and body … and I later found some of my boys lying against enemy positions with unexploded grenades in their hands. They were riddled with wounds but struggled as they died to get to the enemy … if ever blokes had earned a decoration … one lad was shot twice in the same action … flesh wounds … “Sir”, he said crying, “Every time I move some bastard shoots me!” … he was only eighteen.
Major Steward, the regimental doctor of the 2/16th Battalion at Brigade Hill, said:
“My saddest sight, at Butcher’s Hill was that of a 23 year old former golf professional. He had a ghastly, gaping wound of the throat, and although my eyes could only see darkness and death, his saw light and hope. They were asking me something with all the mute urgency that eyes can convey. Eyes, the windows of the soul, show every facet of the inner feelings—love, joy, hope, fear, guilt, pity, hatred, and even bodily sickness or health. Looking as dispassionately as possible at that man’s throat, I hoped he couldn’t sense the lump in mine. Emotion clouds calm clinical judgement, but the hardest thing is not to flinch from the gaze of the man you know is going to die.”
Laurie Howson of the 39th Battalion said:
“The days go on. You are trying to survive, shirt torn, arse out of your pants, whiskers a mile long, hungry and a continuous line of stretchers with wounded carried by “Fuzzy-Wuzzies” doing a marvellous job. Some days you carry your boots because there’s no skin on your feet. But when I look around at some of the others, hell! They look crook! Then I have seen the time when you dig a number of holes in the ground and bury your dead. Nothing would be said, but you think “maybe it will be my turn next.”
Captain Katekar of the 2/27th Battalion wrote:
“The wounded, God only knows, were in purgatory, hungry and in great pain. Some of our natives began to desert, meaning that our men had to replace them as bearers. “Doc” Viner-Smith allowed the maggots to remain on the wound in order to eat the rotting flesh and so prevent gangrene. That night we were still short of Nauro. I found it a great mental strain and so did the Commander and other officers, with that great responsibility of not only saving our wounded but of saving ourselves from starvation.”
Chester Wilmot, a war correspondent on the Kokoda Track, said:
“They must be going through hell on this track—specially those with leg wounds. Some have been hit in the foot and they can’t even get a boot on, but they’re walking back over root and rock and through mud in bare feet, protected only by their bandages. Here’s a steep pinch and a wounded digger’s trying to climb it. You need both hands and both feet, but he’s been hit in the arm and thigh.
“Two of his cobbers are helping him along. One goes ahead, hauling himself up by root and branch. The wounded digger clings to the belt of the man in front with his good hand, while his other cobber gets underneath and pushes him up. I say to this fellow he ought to be a stretcher case, but he replies “I can get along. There’s blokes here lots worse than me and if we don’t walk they’ll never get out.”
They are some examples of the selfless sacrifice that was made by ordinary soldiers on our behalf during our campaigns. When we turned the Japanese back at the battles of Milne Bay and Kokoda, Sir William Slim of Burma wrote:
‘Some of us may forget that of all the Allies it was the Australian soldiers who first broke the spell of the invincibility of the Japanese Army; those of us who were in Burma have cause to remember.’
The attitude of the men of Kokoda was summed up by another journalist and author, Osmar White, who was at Eora Creek during the evacuation of the wounded. Australian forces that could fight were desperately trying to hold the Japanese off so that our wounded could crawl into the jungle and get back over the feature to their rear. White wrote:
“I saw a 20 year old redheaded boy with shrapnel in his stomach. He kept muttering to himself about not being able to see the blasted Japs. When Eora was to be evacuated, he knew he had very little chance of being shifted back up the line. He called to me, confidentially: “Hey dig, bend down a minute. Listen … I think us blokes are going to be left when they pull out. Will you do us a favour? Scrounge us a tommy gun from somewhere will you?”
“It was not bravado. You could see that by looking in his eyes. He just wanted to see a Jap before he died. That was all. Such things should have been appalling. They were not appalling. One accepted them calmly. This was jungle war—the most merciless war of all.”
In his great tribute to ordinary Australians he wrote:
‘I was convinced for all time of the dignity and nobility of common men.
I was convinced for all time that common men have a pure and shining courage when they fight for what they believe to be a just and shining cause.
‘That which was fine in these men outweighed and made trivial all that was horrible in their plight. I cannot explain it except to say that they were at all times cheerful and helped one another. They never gave up the fight. They never admitted defeat. They never asked for help.
‘I felt proud to be of their race and cause, bitterly ashamed to be so nagged by the trivial ills of my own flesh. I wondered if all men, when they had endured so much that exhausted nerves would no longer give response, were creatures of the spirit, eternal and indestructible as stars.’
The men of Kokoda fought a terrible battle against overwhelming odds, yet they were not overwhelmed. They suffered huge casualties at Isurava and in the fighting back through Templeton’s Crossing, Mission Ridge and Brigade Hill. They fought in the worst conditions imaginable, the climate and incredibly difficult terrain adding to their burden. Ultimately, they fought the enemy to a standstill and saw him turn at Iorabaiwa and retreat back over the Kokoda Track. Extraordinarily disciplined and well led, their efforts were not initially understood and appreciated by the higher command. However, the verdict of history and of the Australian people is different.
History records that these men made a tremendous victory possible. They stopped a downward thrust that if successful would have exposed the entire Australian mainland to invasion. So significant was their achievement that the historians now unanimously agree that the battles of the Kokoda Trail saw the turning of the tide—a tide that could well have engulfed a young nation. Theirs was a victory not only of the jungle battlefield but a victory of sacrifice and selflessness, a victory of mateship, a victory of courage, a victory of endurance. In linking the spirit of Anzac with the spirit of Kokoda, it has been said that Anzac created a nation but Kokoda saved a nation.
Since the end of World War II we have engaged in other conflicts in defence of the free world. We have fought in Malaya and Vietnam, and we have served as peacekeepers throughout the free world. We are what we are today because of the selfless sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Australians, young and old, male and female, black, white and brindle in two world wars and in numerous other conflicts in support of a free world. Through their mateship and courage, and because of their initiative and endurance, they carved a special place in our history and they should never be forgotten. Colonel Phil Roden, who died a couple of years ago, was the commander of the 2/14th Battalion at the Battle of Isurava. In a speech he made a couple of years ago he said that “the death of the brave is never in vain”. When the unknown soldier was brought home Paul Keating paid this great tribute. He said:
‘We do not know his rank or his battalion. We do not know where he was born, or precisely how and when he died. We do not know where in Australia he has made his home or when he left it for the battlefields of Europe. We do not know his age or his circumstances—whether he was from the city or the bush; what occupation he left to become a soldier; what religion, if he had a religion; if he was married or single. We do not know who loved him or whom he loved. If he had children we do not know who they were. His family is lost to us as he was lost to them.
‘We will never know who this Australian was. Yet he has always been among those we have honoured. We know that he was one of the 25,000 Australians who died on the Western Front. One of the 416,000 Australians who volunteered for service in the First World War. One of the 324,000 Australians who served overseas in that war; and one of the 60,000 Australians who died on foreign soil. One of the 100,000 Australians who have died in wars this century.
‘He is all of them. And he is one of us.’
Recently I was honoured to give an Anzac address to a group of students aged from five to about 16 years at a small girls school in Castle Hill. During my speech I said that if I had been giving the address 50 years ago most of them would not have had a father to go home to because of the sacrifice made by our fathers and grandfathers, but we are fortunate that they have fathers to go home to today.
Let us hope that that continues. We must never forget the sacrifice that has been made for the freedom and prosperity we enjoy in Australia today. Their sacrifice is our heritage. They deserve, more than any other group in our society, to be acknowledged in Parliament as a constant reminder of that sacrifice. I commend the motion to the House. Lest we forget.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.59 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Charlie Lynn and congratulate him on his outstanding speech on the traditions of Anzac, making special reference to both the First World War and the Second World War. He has suggested that after the prayers are read in this House at the beginning of each sitting day members recite the following words:
I acknowledge the supreme sacrifice made by the service men and women who gave their lives on active service in defence of the freedom we enjoy in New South Wales today.
Our Procedure Committee would have to make such a recommendation before that could be done, but it would be unique—such words are not spoken in any other parliament. It would be a way of constantly reminding ourselves of our servicemen and servicewomen, just as we do on Anzac Day when we recite the words “Lest we forget.”
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.
21 September 2006
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [3.52 p.m.]: I move:
‘That in recognition of the year of the ninetieth anniversary of the Australian landing at Anzac Cove in Gallipoli, the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Pacific War and the fortieth anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, this House calls on the President to acknowledge the sacrifice made by Australian service men and women who gave their lives in defence of the freedom we enjoy today after the prayer at the beginning of each sitting week in the following terms:
“I acknowledge the supreme sacrifice made by the servicemen and women who gave their lives on active service in defence of the freedom we enjoy in New South Wales today.”
Since I proposed my original motion in the House on 4 May we have observed the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan, about which I will speak shortly.
Acknowledgment of the traditional owners of the land seems to have been introduced around the time of the republican-reconciliation debates during the Keating Labor era. Left-wing academics, inner-city urban dwellers and doctors’ wives were among the comfortable middle-class voices calling for changes to our flag and our system of parliamentary democracy. They also wanted us to say “sorry” for historical wrongs over which we had no influence.
As it turned out, the only thing that changed was the government. I would hope that these ideological warriors of the Left will come to understand that the wider Australian community will accept such changes to our systems, symbols and institutions only when they are treated as equals in the debate and not as a group of uneducated westies or rednecks.
It is my view that concentrating on so-called progressive issues for our indigenous people has done them more harm than good. The feel-good factor for the chattering classes in comfortable inner-city environments does not translate into worthwhile sustainable benefits for indigenous people in remote and isolated areas. It has taken the emergence of indigenous leaders, such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine, to get some balance back into the debate, and to earn the respect of the wider community in the process.
The election of one of the ideological relics of the Left to the presidency of this House brought with it some radical but predictable change.
Firstly, our ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen were insulted when representatives of some of the most repressive Communist regimes in the world were invited as official guests to the opening of the House, while our former and current allies, with whom we had spilled blood in conflict with those Communist regimes, were ignored.
The next to go was the portrait of the Queen from the public area of the Parliament. The President used considerable vision in the removal of that portrait, given that, because of the position in which it was hung, it was not seen by many who visited the Parliament.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: The motion that the Hon. Charlie Lynn has moved is very specific. It deals with a number of anniversaries in relation to battles fought by Australian servicemen and servicewomen. Nothing he has said so far has related to that motion. However, what he has said in terms of the reconciliation process and the traditional owners of the land, and his reflection on the President, is against the standing orders as well as being totally outside the leave of the motion he has moved.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: To the point of order: The motion states that after the prayer at the beginning of the sitting week we acknowledge the supreme sacrifice made by the servicemen and servicewomen who gave their lives on active service in defence of the freedoms we enjoy in New South Wales today. That was initiated as a result of the introduction to this House of acknowledgment of the traditional owners of this land. Everything I am saying in this debate relates to that original motion, and I will develop the argument as to why our servicemen and servicewomen, who sacrificed their lives on active service in defence of the freedoms we enjoy in New South Wales today should be acknowledged.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Further to the point of order: By the Hon. Charlie Lynn reading parts of his motion for the third time he is hardly saying anything relevant to the point of order. He did not argue, and the motion does not state, that it relates to the acknowledgment of the traditional owners. But I also took exception to his reflections on the President and the monarchy in contravention of the standing orders.
The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: To the point of order: The Hon. Charlie Lynn’s motion refers to Australian servicemen and servicewomen who gave their lives in defence of the freedoms that we enjoy today. Some of those freedoms are not to be found in some of the regimes to which he referred and that goes to the heart of what he is on about. Therefore there is no point of order.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: To the point of order: I am loath to interfere on the basis that I believe we were reaching some degree of consensus, and that has been my point all along about what form this debate should take. However, I remind the Hon. Charlie Lynn that one of the freedoms members do not enjoy is the freedom to contravene the standing orders. If the Hon. Charlie Lynn wishes to make such aspersions against people outside this Chamber, that is a matter that can be addressed by the due processes of this House. But I would urge you not to allow the Hon. Charlie Lynn to make reflections on members of this House, the monarch or, indeed the Governor General or Governor, in seeking to influence the House to vote in one way or another
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! I have heard sufficient on the point of order. The member may, by way of background for his motion, refer to Aboriginal land rights and the acknowledging of the traditional owners of this land. However, I caution him about reflecting on the President and the monarch. The standing orders are very clear on that.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I was congratulating the President on moving the portrait of the monarch to a place where it is seen by everyone who enters and leaves this place. That is a wonderful thing.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is not a reflection.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: No, that is correct. However, in speaking on behalf of servicemen and servicewomen, the Returned Services League and the Vietnam Veterans Association, I remember the outrage when this Parliament was opened and the high commissioners of North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba were invited into this House as official guests and the representatives of our allies were ignored.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, you probably know that the Hon. Charlie Lynn is ignoring the warning you gave him about reflecting on the President.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The Hon. Charlie Lynn is reflecting on the President, and that is contrary to the standing orders. Such reflections cannot be made unless by way of substantive motion.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: As I said, one group of people in our community should also be acknowledged by our parliaments, our local councils and our educational institutions. That is our servicemen and servicewomen, who sacrifice their lives in defence of the freedom, peace and prosperity that we have in this country today.
Since I first spoke on this motion on 4 May we have commemorated the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan. Honourable members will recall the conflict in Vietnam and the conscription program in place at the time. I was conscripted into the army with thousands of other young Australians. Like them, I voluntarily served the governments of the day, both the Liberal Government and the Labor Government.
That was a sad period, because it was the first time in our history that our servicemen and servicewomen returning from active service were betrayed by a small minority of radicals who campaigned against us and mocked us when we arrived home. That is probably one of the most disgraceful chapters in our history. I will record the reflections of Major Bill Wallace, who spoke at the battle of Long Tan commemorative service on 20 August this year. He stated:
‘Colonel John McRae, a Canadian Medical officer in WW I (formerly Professor of Medicine at Macgill University) was the composer of “In Flanders Fields”, which he had written in 1915, but was not published (at first anonymously) until 1923. He died of wounds in May 1918, and on the night before his death said to his doctor this quote from the last stanza. Tell them this, “If ye break faith with us who die we shall not sleep”.
Today we honour those who sleep and help them to sleep peacefully.
Major Wallace continued:
’‘In recognising that 18th August is the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan (this being the 40th anniversary of that battle), the headline battle from the Australian involvement in the Vietnam conflict, it was not the largest in which the Australian forces were engaged. But it has come to symbolise the conflict in the Australian community.
‘However we are here because this day was appointed by the Parliament of Australia, on advice from the Veterans, to honour the service of the 50,000 Australian servicemen and servicewomen who served in Vietnam between 1962 and 1972. So we gather here not to reflect specifically about the few hundred Australians and New Zealanders who fought the Battle of Long Tan, but all those who served. We are honouring also those who fought at Bien Hoa, in War Zone D, FSB Coral and Balmoral, Binh Ba, Baria, Dat Do, along Route 44, in the Long Hais, Mai Tao Mountains, Hat Dich, Tui Tich, Xuyen Moc, The Horseshoe, The Light Green and the Long Green, in the Courtney Rubber, and along the Song Rai. Not forgetting the heroism of the AA TTV Members in 1 Corps and 2 Corps which resulted in the awarding of many honours including the Victoria Cross on 4 occasions. We must also honour the service of the members of 1 Australian Logistic Support Group in Vung Tau whose efforts kept the combat elements in the field supplied with all the materials needed to wage war, repaired all the damaged equipment, and mended wounded and diseased bodies. And we remember those who served at HQ MV in Saigon, keeping contact with Australia, and co-ordinating the activities of the Australian forces with those of the allied nations.
‘We must also remember the members of the RAAF whether flying Hueys with 9 Sqn out of Vung Tau, with Wallaby Airlines flying their Caribou aircraft to all parts of the country, with the Canberra bombers, destroying enemy installations, isolating the battlefield and disrupting enemy supply lines, or with the C130 Hercules taking men and supplies to and from Vietnam, especially providing those special medical evacuation flights which had a 10 year unblemished record. We also remember the service of the members of the RAN ferrying men and materials from Australia on “The Vung Tau Ferry”, HMAS Sydney and on HMAS Jeparrit, conducting combat and fire support operations along the coast on the DDG Destroyers, the clearance divers keeping the harbours secure, or the pilots of Fleet Air Arm either with the Assault Helicopter Coy at Bear Cat or on attachment to the RAAF Units.
‘But why do we remember these Veterans? What is so special about being a Veteran? The answer quite simply is that these are the only servants of the Australian Nation who have had to be prepared to die to implement national policy. No others are required to make this commitment. When undertaking this service to the nation, these men and women are deprived of any of the personal rights which properly protect our freedom and democracy. When you don a uniform, you lose the right to refuse a lawful command at every level from the CDF to the lowest recruit. If the Government says that this is what is required, the defence force has no alternative but to say “Yes Sir”. This is why the nation does not have occasions such as this to remember the service of government employees who work in the ATO or in the Diplomatic Service. Only Veterans have been required by the Australian Nation to make this ultimate commitment. Only Veterans have been required to be prepared to die in the service of the nation.
‘This makes all Veterans “special”. However, to the veterans it appears that the nation has forgotten this and has allowed Veterans issues to become part of party politics. Veterans believe that if the maintenance of the Defence Force is the premium on the Nation’s Insurance Policy, Veterans are the payout on that policy, and as such are above politics. To provide appropriate support to the veterans is a national obligation, and must progress from being considered “adequate” to being appropriate before those who did not come home will be able to rest peacefully.
‘But we are here today specifically to honour the Veterans of the conflict in Vietnam. Why are these Veterans specially honoured? What is special about being a Vietnam Veteran?
‘For the first time in Australian History a war was lost. There was no return of conquering heroes to a grateful nation. The attempt to prop up the corrupt military dictatorship in South Vietnam failed and the reunification of Vietnam under the North Vietnamese Government is now a permanent fixture. Australia fought this war with limited political aims, mainly to convince the United States that we were a true and valuable ally, and that the US should fill the vacuum created in SE Asia by the British decision the withdraw to Europe. It could be argued that this also has failed and that Australia is still pursuing a foreign policy to achieve these objectives.
‘It is now beyond dispute that the intelligence advice to the government before the decision to deploy combat troops was taken was that the war was not winnable. Yet the decision was taken which cost the lives of 501 young Australians.
‘As the ADF knew this, the motivation for the soldiers deployed to Vietnam was based purely on mateship, pride and professionalism. When they returned, none of this was recognised.
‘The soldiers felt betrayed by the nation because of this, and buried themselves back into the community. But the recognition that was given to the men after WW II was not afforded to them.‘Allowances were not made for the effects of war on these young men. I remember when I was a boy that a man’s shortcomings would be tolerated because he was a “Returned Man”. This did not happen in Australia in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Happily it is now being done, but for a great many, the damage is irreparable.
‘During the Vietnam War, the nation was not at war. Other than the families of the soldier, no-one in Australia was required to make any sacrifices. As a result, after the war, veterans issues quickly disappeared over the political horizon, and with some minor exceptions this continues to be the case today. Veterans feel betrayed. The Minister for Veterans Affairs is no longer a stand alone figure, having dual responsibility as a junior minister reporting to the Minister for Defence. Recently the Minister made an important announcement regarding issues about which Vietnam Veterans feel passionate. This media release was widely circulated in the veteran community but ignored in the media.
‘The Prime Minister will attend dinner with the Long Tan Veterans in the Great Hall but will not grant the national president of the TPI Association 10 minutes in his office. Politicians are happy to accept the recommendations of an independent tribunal to fix their own salaries and conditions, but accepted less than 20% of the recommendations made by Justice Clarke who had been appointed to independently review veterans’ entitlements. The electorate accepted without question the spin that the veterans were being looked after, (albeit only after a backbench revolt in the lead up to the election in 2004).
‘Besides the Veterans, the casualties of the Vietnam War have been our beautiful and long suffering families. The one positive is that it is now accepted, although not yet at the policy level, that war has an effect on families. The divorce rate in Vietnam Veterans is almost twice the national average, and the effect on our children has been horrendous.’
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods laughs. This is not something to laugh about; it is a very serious issue among Vietnam veterans. I cannot understand why the Hon. Jan Burnswoods would turn her back on this debate and laugh at these statistics. The address continued:
‘It has been confirmed that in the tragedy of youth suicide, sons and daughters of Vietnam Veterans are over represented by a factor of 3.5. This is not a fact for which the Prime Minister apologised in Parliament on Wednesday. This needless waste of so many wonderful young people continues and is largely ignored. Happily, things may well be changing.
‘Despite world-wide recognition of the effect of dioxin exposure on the health of individuals and their offspring, the Australian Government hides behind a limited scientific opinion, and refuses to revisit this issue. Although it is too late for our children, there are signs that it is being recognised that war affects families and that programs are being developed to attempt to limit these effects. One could say that this is just an extension of occupational Health and Safety which is mandatory on all employers.
‘Vietnam Veterans feel betrayed. In 1969 when I was placing my life on the line for this nation, the special rate of pension paid to permanently incapacitated servicemen was 90% of average weekly earnings. TPI’s did not receive welfare. The neglect of all governments since, which has been accepted by the electorate, has resulted in those people now being welfare dependent. When the automatic adjustments are made next month, for the first time welfare will constitute more than 50% of the income of most TPI’s, and the special rate of pension will be about 40% of the average weekly earnings. Of the 40,000 Vietnam Veterans still alive (5,000 have taken their own lives—10 times as many who died during the conflict), 18,000 are now classed as Totally and Permanently Incapacitated. They feel betrayed as since 1997, all Centrelink Benefits and Parliamentary Superannuation payments have been indexed at the more advantageous rate of MTAWE which has been a serious disadvantage to veterans. I return to my earlier comment that Veteran entitlements should be appropriate, not adequate.
‘This is why Vietnam Veterans are “special”. Mainly for reasons we would rather have ignored or wish had not occurred at all. Whilst there are 40,000 of us still alive, the nation has a chance to make amends, not merely by public expressions of sorrow and gratitude, not by glittering dinners and ceremonies at the fine memorials which have been built, but by changing things which affect the everyday lives of veterans.’
I found this poem by James D Young which captures the spirit of my address in a fine anthology of Australian Military poetry.
The Folly of War
The cannons roar, the bullets whine,
The soldiers’ dreaded fate,
The reason why, not clear to see
Thoughts of logic, far too late.
Where hide the ones who make the war
Who fashion all the rules,
Not for the battlefield
This honour—left to fools.
Yet fools we are, we men of arms
Who hold our honour high,
While those who make this world of war
Care not that soldiers die.
Vested power to politician
Who, for greed, would sell their soul,
But never they in gunshot sound
For them, no bells do toll.
Never yet in history’s time
Were problems solved by force,
Still Man must pay the devil ‘s price
The biblical rider, on a pale horse.
Where men of science boldly tread
No man has been before,
Yet humanity prospers not a whit
When it comes to the folly of war.
To extrapolate from the words of Colonel John McRae in May 1918; you as the Australian Nation have not kept faith, and those who died are not yet sleeping.
I commend Major Wallace for that fine speech to the veterans at the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan commemorative service held in Ballarat on 20 August this year. The address adds weight to the need for us to try to heal the wounds felt by many veterans, particularly Vietnam veterans, who were betrayed by their own people back here. It was not the veterans who started the war; it was the politicians who committed them to war. The veterans simply served their nations as they have always done. If people had wanted to attack the politicians who sent them to war and demonstrate against them, we would have acknowledged that. But to attack the soldiers, as they did, after the Vietnam War was an absolute disgrace. These radicals also tried to hijack Anzac Day ceremonies during the Vietnam War. An article in a 1981 newspaper under the heading “Ugly, violent Anzac Day” reported:
‘Police and demonstrators clashed violently at yesterday’s Anzac Day march in Canberra.
‘Who was demonstrating? A bunch of left-wing, radical women, who were campaigning about women raped in war. They were simply trying to grab some very cheap publicity. Federal Labor member Ken Fry described it as “the blackest Anzac Day ever” because these people, who had campaigned against the veterans, tried to then ambush Anzac Day ceremonies.
It was also reported in a 1981 newspaper reported the national president of the RSL, Sir William Keys, was unavailable for comment after the march. But on Friday [he said]:
“The women can march or demonstrate or protest whenever they want at any other time or place. We do not interfere with their occasions or rights. Why do they want to interrupt ours?’
It was an absolute disgrace. When a motion such as this is moved normally the first thing the Left do is seek to discredit the motion, and I anticipate that.
The first thing they do is change the word “commemorate” to “celebrate”. Nowhere in my contribution have I used the term “celebration of war”—and never will I. But I will use “commemoration”, in commemorating the deeds of our servicemen.
Changing the word from “commemorate” to “celebrate” allows the Left to suggest that we are trying in some way to celebrate war. As I said, anyone who has fought in war would agree that it is not something one would celebrate.
Our involvement in other wars has also been brought up in debate. Our involvement in the Boer War in 1899, our involvement in the Boxer Rebellion and in the Sudan in 1885, and our involvement in the Maori wars in 1863-64 were brought up as examples of why we should not be proud of previous service. I have never proposed that.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: I understand that the Hon. Charlie Lynn is speaking to a motion as written and that he has indicated his intention to include in the motion the words “including the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan”. I believe that is an appropriate amendment, but I understand he needs leave to move the amendment before his time for speaking has expired. That is why I am interrupting him at this point. I ask that he be given leave to incorporate that clause in the motion prior to the conclusion of his contribution.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I thank the Hon. Peter Primrose for reminding me of that. Accordingly, by leave, I move:
‘That the question be amended by inserting after “Pacific War” the words “the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan”.’
I remind the House that this motion is about the involvement of Australian servicemen and servicewomen and that we honour that in our words. The Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion and the Maori Wars were not our wars. We were not an Australian nation; we were a British colony. We became an Australian nation on 1 January 1901 and from that time our involvement has been in World War I—and I reflected on that in a previous debate when I spoke of the wonderful leadership of General Sir John Monash and the involvement of Australian troops—and World War II.
Australian troops fought first in the Far East, the Middle East, at the battles of Tobruk, El Alamein and so forth, then in the south-west Pacific along the Kokoda track, at Milne Bay, Lae, Finchhafen, Bougainville and so forth. After that they fought in the Korean War and then the Vietnam War.
These are the engagements for which I believe the sacrifices of Australian service men and service women should be acknowledged in this Parliament. I hope that eventually they will be acknowledged in all parliaments, including the Federal Parliament, and in all local government councils after the acknowledgment of the traditional owners of the land.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.21 p.m.]: I strongly support the motion moved by the Hon. Charlie Lynn. We know this is very much a personal issue for him as he has spoken on related matters many times in this House. I congratulate him on his efforts and on his sincerity in his attempt to have these additional words spoken at the beginning of each day of Parliament. The Procedure Committee, previously called the Standing Orders Committee, has been established to consider such matters. Changes to the procedures of the House should not be simply voted on in the House as stand-alone issues but should be referred to the Procedure Committee. It is an all-party committee that can give serious consideration to how proposals may affect the running of the Parliament and how they fit in with the present procedures. After the committee has reached consensus on an issue the matter can be dealt with in the House and passed without any sense of animosity or disagreement. I agree with all that the Hon. Charlie Lynn has said and support his objective. I have foreshadowed an amendment that I understand has been considered by Government and Opposition members. I have also discussed it with the Hon. Charlie Lynn. I move:
That the question be amended by omitting all words after “That” and inserting instead, “the Procedure Committee inquire into and report on the desirability of the President acknowledging after the prayer on the first sitting day of each week the sacrifice by Australian service men and women who gave their lives in defence of the freedom we enjoy today; and related matters.”
If the matter is referred to the Procedure Committee forthwith we may reach agreement on the best way to deal with the issue. But it is a matter for the House, bearing in mind that some members have expressed strong views for and against the proposal. The amendment is intended to transfer the debate to the Procedure Committee to be discussed in a calm and rational manner. The committee can then bring a recommendation back to the House in due course. Obviously, according to the rules of the House, other members can speak on the matter when I conclude my remarks. I do not want to draw out the debate but I agree with the Hon. Charlie Lynn that there should be some way in which this House acknowledges the sacrifices made by Australian service men and women who gave their lives in defence of the freedom we enjoy today. How that is finally done is a matter for the House. I hope that the Procedure Committee can bring forward a recommendation that is supported by all parties.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: I am a little confused about what Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is trying to achieve. From what he was saying it seems to me that he wants this debate to go to a committee and then come back to the House. To me, what he has moved would seem to make perfect sense if it were to be voted on at some stage and then go to a committee. But I do not see that it can be sent off to a committee and then come back to the House for the debate to continue.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I was about to clarify that point with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. If the member wishes to have that amendment dealt with immediately, there will obviously be procedural issues to consider. Usually, amendments are dealt with at the conclusion of debate on the question before the Chair.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: To the point of order: I am happy for it to be left to the end of the debate, if other members wish to speak to the motion.
LINKS TO THE FULL DEBATE:
Lest We Forget
