Mr ADAMS(12.47 p.m.) —I move:

That this House:

(1)   notes that:

(a)   the members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are the only Australians to be deliberately excluded from eligibility for repatriation benefits for honourable `active service' under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986;

(b)   the members of the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force serving in Malaya were not similarly excluded; and

(c)   a letter, dated 11 November 1955, from the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Treasury stated that the date on which RAN ships were allotted for duty as the RAN component of the Strategic Reserve was 1 July 1955; and;

(2)   calls on the Minister for Defence to take action to ensure that members of the Royal Australian Navy between 1955 and 1960 are recognised as being allotted for duty in the Malayan theatre; and

(3)   calls on the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to take action to ensure that naval veterans of the Malayan theatre are recognised with the relevant campaign medal and the Returned from Active Service Badge.

I believe that recognition of those who served in the navy in the Malayan emergency is long overdue. From research of those who served and their families, I have been advised that there are two areas where recognition has been denied. The first is the exclusion of RAN eligibility for service afloat off Malaya between 1955 and 1960 in the veterans' entitlements legislation, imposed by the Menzies government, while the RAN was serving in Malaya in late 1956. The second is the refusal of the Navy Office to acknowledge RAN eligibility for the Naval General Service Medal.

Looking at the exclusion from eligibility for repatriation benefits, it has been constantly stated by the navy that HMA ships were never allocated for operational service. However, a letter from the Department of the Navy to the Treasury of 11 November 1955 says:

The date on which RAN ships were allotted for duty as the RAN component of the Strategic Reserve was 1 July, 1955.

That was well within the time period of which we are talking for these servicemen. There was other supporting evidence, which the government will well know of by now. This evidence was given to the Navy Office in late 1995, and I understand that it has disappeared.

Many statements have been given, and many retired service people have been involved in this discussion. I cannot think that such distinguished people as Admirals Peek, Hudson and Griffiths would lend their assistance to a cause which they did not believe was right and just. What they are asking for is very basic. I understand it will not cost the government huge amounts of money. It would be reasonable to think that these service people have been properly compensated for being away from their families and friends in service of their country. Time does not allow me to go into the full argument, but I believe that these people have been dealt a sad injustice. It is about time it was remedied.

Apart from anything else, there should be a complete review of all the evidence and information collected by ex-servicemen so they can have an opportunity to put their case to an independent arbitrator. There has been enough procrastination and inaction in this area, which I do not think is fair to our ex- service personnel—even to our present personnel, as raised by my colleague in the preceding debate.

At this stage there is overwhelming evidence to say that they were on active service when they were in the campaign, that they have a very good case to be recognised under the veterans' entitlements legislation and, further, that their efforts should be recognised with the Naval General Service Medal, the NGSM Malaya.

I would ask the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) to recognise the issue. The minister has got herself into one of those Yes, Minister situations, where some of the paper pushing personnel have developed a head-in-the-sand sort of attitude to a difficult problem. It is not going to go away; this issue is going to stay on the Notice Paper and in the debate for ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen for as long as it takes to be resolved. It is not fair to keep denying these servicemen the right to at least get some of the answers from those who can actually make the decisions.

I ask that there be bipartisan support for this motion to go forward and that it be dealt with by the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan)—let him become involved and put his pressure to it—or Minister Bishop, the understudy, who is at the table. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) should get involved and give his full support to this motion. (Time expired)

Mr Price —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.