Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This year, many of us in this chamber and elsewhere have spoken of the sacrifice and bravery of the Anzac diggers, nurses, and other military personnel. It is right that we do so. But it is also right that we seek meaning in this sacrifice, and that we question what was achieved by the Great War and how we should best honour and learn from the deaths of so many. The lessons of history are critically important to us today if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past. Australia suffered 60,000 dead and 156,000 wounded in the Great War. The hidden emotional and psychological scars of the war that were never reflected in the statistics ran deep in many thousands of veterans and in the families of returned soldiers. An entire generation of children grew up without their fathers—and while many of those who returned were physically present, they were still missing.

So what exactly does it mean to commemorate 100 years of the Anzacs? And why do we choose to do this as a nation? And do we do this for the right reasons? These are important questions to answer. Commemorating means paying respects by remembering and honouring the sacrifices of Australians and New Zealanders who fought in the Great War. But it does not mean to celebrate or to glorify war, and we must be careful to avoid this. The commemoration must be more than simply a ritual; it must be full of meaning. Bill Denny, a veteran of the South Australia RSL, said in 2012 of the Anzac Centenary commemoration: 'The overarching obligation we have when we anticipate any Anzac commemoration is to truly recognise and accept the brutality, senselessness, and futility of war.' That is from a veteran today. But you might be surprised to hear this quote from the opening of the Australian War Memorial on 11 November 1941, from Australia's Governor General, Lord Gowrie, a Victoria Cross winner and a severely wounded veteran of the Great War. Whilst praising the heroic efforts of the Australian soldiers, and their willingness to sacrifice for the cause they believed in, he stated:

Now the war lasted for four years. It was responsible for the death of over eight million able-bodied men. It was responsible for the wounding and maiming of many, many millions more. It caused universal destruction, desolation and distress without bringing any compensating advantage to any one of the belligerents. It was a war which settled nothing; it was a war in which all concerned came out losers.

Lest we forget that, as we reflect upon this year's commemoration.

The stories that we tell now about the experiences of people 100 years ago matter. The stories that I have heard in my electorate of Melbourne have given me a new insight into the Anzac experience and reminded me of how deeply the effects of war were felt. It has been moving to hear of the soldiers who attended schools or their predecessors in my electorate—including Flemington Primary School, Richmond Primary School, Mount Alexander College and Carlton Gardens Primary School—who never came home from war. It has been a privilege to support these schools in their commemorations.

I have been deeply moved to hear the stories of not only those who fought but those who cared for them. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has recognised the work of Australian surgeons who, through their medical advances during the course of the war, saved many thousands of lives. It was a time when women were so often excluded from the medical profession, so it has been humbling to learn through the memorial of the Victorian Medical Women's Association of the lengths to which Australia's medical women went to ensure that they too could be present in France to save lives.

Caring did not only happen at the front. The thousands of Australian men who fought and died were outnumbered by those who returned to Australia with a permanent disability. The lifetime of work for the women who remained to care for them has too often been unacknowledged in our history. I am pleased to support in my electorate the development of a memorial for women caring for veterans of war. It is right that we now remember the role of the carer in war and reflect on how we can today care for Australia's veterans.

For as we remember those who served a century ago, we must not forget that we are still in an open-ended war in Iraq. If the history of the West's involvement in Middle Eastern wars is anything to go by, there will be few winners and nothing permanent may be settled from this military conflict.

The senselessness of the Great War is best reflected in the questionable reasons for its occurrence, the reasons—the madness and hysteria, and the leadership failures—that led the world into a war that killed 37 million people, three million of them unknown soldiers whose bodies were never recovered and who are often left unaddressed in Anzac commemorations. It was a war that helped set up another world war which years later claimed another 85 million lives.

Much has been written over the past 100 years on what caused this hideous and appalling conflict that killed so many people. Respected historian Paul Ham, in his book written last August for the 100-year commemoration of the First World War and called 1914: The year the world ended, said that World War I was:

… an avoidable nightmare … an unnecessary exercise in collective stupidity and callousness launched by profoundly flawed and emotionally unintelligent men ... that determined the direction of the 20th century.

Ham points the finger of blame for this avoidable war directly at politicians and governments, who he claims were 'wide-awake, sentient decision-makers' who 'collectively manufactured' the war. He also says:

Europe's rulers and political leaders knew something most of their people didn't; a war was coming. A few powerful, old, aristocratic men [brought] war on the world from behind closed doors, free from the scrutiny of a fully enfranchised public or an uncensored press.

He then says:

… for four years, European Governments compelled millions of young men to go to war, to die, to be terribly mutilated, gassed or mentally ruined. They [have] used propaganda, [plain] lies, white feathers, threats and political expedience to goad, threaten, terrify and humiliate men into uniform.

He also strikingly states in the book's conclusion:

Only a legal construction distinguished the Great War from the government-sponsored mass murder of youth.

Could the invasion of Iraq over a decade ago, the subsequent war and the region's descent into barbaric, bloody chaos have been an avoidable nightmare as well? Was it also a failure of leadership and a few powerful politicians and an executive away from scrutiny and a fully enfranchised public that delivered us to this war?

At the same time as our then Prime Minister committed us to joining the United States in the Iraq war, hundreds of thousands of Australians took to the streets of cities across our country to declare that this decision was not in their name and that Australia and Australians should not again become entangled in a war far from home.

Unlike many democracies, in this country it is our Prime Minister who determines whether we go to war. This is plainly wrong. In the US, a vote of Congress decides; in the UK, it is a vote of the House of Commons. In Australia, it should be a vote of parliament, and the Greens will continue to push for that change.

It is critical in this context, as we commemorate 100 years of Anzac, that we reflect on this question of how we are able to get involved in wars. It is critical at this commemoration that we reflect upon the causes of all war, just as much as we reflect upon the many acts of bravery and sacrifice in war. A war avoided is a tragedy foregone.

The Anzac commemoration must also reflect that, as now, back then we were also deeply divided and questioning of our commitment to the war. The 1916 and 1917 referendum votes on conscription, in which conscription was rejected, are examples of how much the war tore the fabric of Australian society apart. If our national identity was born in the Great War, suggesting we all came together as one following the beaches of Gallipoli and the fields of France, then this too is part of our national identity, that we are a people sceptical of fighting in foreign wars beyond our shores. This must be acknowledged.

On this centenary, we must remember our brave ancestors who fought and died not just to win the war but to win the peace. Looking back over the last century, the world has collectively failed in this regard. Indeed, it seems easier to win wars than to win the peace. But this does not mean we should not persevere in resolving conflicts without violence. In remembering the past, we must heed its lessons and feel the suffering of those who came before us. This must lead us to pursue means of achieving peace without violence and the deep pain, suffering and loss that wars bring. We must strive to ensure that our value for life overwhelms the tensions and differences that exist between us. We must not be afraid to challenge the existing powers and broader stories when they push us to repeat the mistakes of the past, whether that be with our families, our friends or our leaders elected to represent us.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context