Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

As I rise to speak to the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008, I would like to begin by pointing out that we are only having two speeches at this point in time—that is, mine and that of the member for Ballarat. The member for Ballarat is going to take maternity leave for her confinement. I know that everyone in the House will wish her well and hope that things go well and that she becomes the mother of a delightful young boy or girl—I do not know whether she knows, but I certainly do not. So we hope all that goes well.

In rising to speak this morning, I say that when I move the amendment that I am going to move it will be out of a sense of sadness, because this memorial in Ballarat began with the great blessing of the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Bruce Scott, who back in 1999 allocated $50,000 as a first grant. Then, in 2003, there was a second grant of $150,000, and then subsequently another grant of $300,000, so the Howard government actually gave half a million dollars for this memorial to be built. But it was the fundraising committee, headed by Mr David Baird OAM, and also the previous member for Ballarat, Mr Michael Ronaldson—now Senator Ronaldson—who worked so hard for this to be something of which the whole nation could be proud. It was a magnificent concept and, indeed, has been executed to become a magnificent memorial.

The whole issue became politicised when the present member for Ballarat, Ms Catherine King, tried to say that she would have the memorial declared a national memorial under the 1928 National Memorials Ordinance, which governs national memorials, so that it would attract ongoing maintenance funding. The former minister, Mr Bruce Billson, who was equally enormously supportive of the memorial for prisoners of war, took the quite proper position that it could not be declared a national memorial pursuant to that ordinance because that ordinance, in existence since 1928, very specifically sets out that those memorials may only be in Canberra. It then reached a very high political level, with the present Prime Minister intervening and saying that there was a lack of will on the part of the Howard government to declare it a national memorial and thereby have maintenance provided and that he would do anything he could to make sure that it became a national memorial.

That was the state that we went to the election in, with the simple statement that the Howard government minister Mr Bruce Billson had made: that it could not be done under the legislation but that he was very happy to give another form of recognition to the very fine memorial to prisoners of war in Ballarat. Mr Billson was vilified by the then opposition. When the new government was elected the present minister, Mr Alan Griffin—who has at every turn tried to be truthful with veterans and to enact his promises and deliver on them—acted quite out of character with his second reading speech when a bill was introduced entitled the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008, which is cited as:

A Bill for an Act to provide for certain memorials to have the status of Military Memorials of National Significance, and for related purposes—

and for which the explanatory memorandum says:

National memorials are recognised under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 and are restricted to memorials within the Australian Capital Territory. This Bill will recognise the national significance of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat and will enable, in the future, other memorials that meet specified criteria, to be recognised as a Military Memorial of National Significance—

exactly the situation which the Howard minister Bruce Billson was in favour of bringing about. But no: the present member for Ballarat, Ms King, was insistent that it become a national memorial. The Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, said it would become a national memorial. The minister said it would become a national memorial and, in his second reading speech, he said:

They—

the fundraisers—

built this magnificent memorial with fundraising appeals and their own hard work. They sought, and rightly received, significant funding from the previous government in support of their project—

which I have just outlined: half a million dollars. Then Mr Griffin said:

… to the lasting frustration of the people who made the Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial possible, the previous government refused repeated requests to recognise it as a national memorial.

The previous government’s position was that it could not be legally done. They argued that national memorials were located here in Canberra and that the ordinance did not allow national status to be given to memorials established outside the Australian Capital Territory.

That is precisely and accurately what the explanatory memorandum to the minister’s own bill says is the position. In other words, Mr Billson’s position as the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is vindicated by the publication of the explanatory memorandum to the minister’s own bill. The current minister, Mr Griffin, then went on to say:

The Australian Labor Party, and particularly here I would recognise the efforts of the member for Ballarat, insisted that it could be done, if the government was willing.

That was the contention of the member for Ballarat, who in the lead-up to the election politicised this splendid memorial, which to this point had been bipartisan; everybody had lauded the efforts, recognised the need for the establishment of this memorial and wanted to ensure that its maintenance would be there. But no: Ms King, the member for Ballarat, insisted that it could be done if the government were willing. The minister, Mr Griffin, went on in his second reading speech to say:

And so, in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, we promised—

that is, the Labor opposition promised—

that, if we were elected to government, it would be done—

that is, the memorial would be established as a national memorial. He then said:

Today, with this legislation, this government keeps that promise.

It does not. He then says:

This legislation will enable the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat to be declared a military memorial of national significance.

This is not a national memorial, because, exactly as the Howard government Minister for Veterans’ Affairs had said, a national memorial can only be in Canberra. The politicisation of this issue has made it a very sad saga. The minister, in his second reading speech, goes on to say:

This bill will also establish a process, separate to the National Memorials Ordinance 1928, to recognise other military memorials of national significance.

…            …            …

The legislation will enable the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, with the written approval of the Prime Minister, to declare a memorial to be a military memorial of national significance.

The minister says in his second reading speech that the bill will apply to eligible memorials located outside the Australian Capital Territory and, specifically, will not apply to the establishment of national memorials in the national capital. He further says:

The Commonwealth will not be responsible for funding or maintaining a memorial that has been declared a military memorial of national significance and so the memorial must also be owned or managed by an authority at the state, territory or local government level.

The responsibility for ongoing maintenance or any refurbishment of a declared memorial will remain with the authority that owns or manages it.

I want to make it very clear that the purpose of this bill is to provide an appropriate mechanism to recognise military memorials of national significance and not to allow for any provision or appropriation of financial support to be provided by the Commonwealth.

In the second part of his speech, he recognises that everything the former minister in the Howard government, Mr Billson, said was correct when he said that national memorials may only be in the ACT. The minister’s own bill and the explanatory memorandum say that this is the case. And yet, in his second reading speech—quite uncharacteristically, I must say—he totally misleads the veterans community and the rest of Australia, for that matter, when he says:

The previous government’s position—

that is us—

was that it could not be legally done—

that is, to make it a national memorial. He says it was ‘to the lasting frustration’ of those who raised the money to see it built that it was not to be declared a national memorial. He said:

The Australian Labor Party, and particularly here I would recognise the efforts of the member for Ballarat—

I recognise that the member for Ballarat has now come into the chamber—

insisted that it could be done, if the government was willing.

She said, in other words, that a national memorial could be declared under the 1928 ordinance if the government had the will. The bill itself recognises that that is totally and utterly untrue. The minister said in this speech:

... in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, we—

the Australian Labor Party—

promised that, if we were elected to government, it would be done.

It has not been done and it cannot be done. But the story gets worse. After the budget comes down, one reads, as one does, Budget Paper No. 2. I refer all honourable members and those who are interested to have a look at page 292 of Budget Paper No. 2 and read what is said under ‘Ballarat Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial’, where it has expenses for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. There are no figures under years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. But underneath it says:

The Government will provide $0.2 million over four years to the Ballarat City Council to assist with the maintenance of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial. The Government will also declare the Ballarat Memorial a national memorial.

One is entitled to believe Budget Paper No. 2—it is an important part of the budget papers—and yet it is telling an untruth. This is a smoke and mirrors exercise. The budget paper is simply a lie, because the bill introduced by the minister says it cannot be done and, in fact, creates a new criterion. In fact, the bill provides specifically that the Ballart Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial does not have to apply under this new criterion; it will automatically be given that status. If any other memorial outside the ACT is interested and wishes to become designated as a military memorial of national significance, it will have to apply under this bill and meet the criteria set out, which say it must be of an appropriate ‘scale, design and standard’ as well as being ‘dignified and symbolic’, in keeping with the purposes of a war memorial. It must be a memorial for the sole purpose of commemorating ‘a significant aspect of Australia’s wartime history’. It says it must have a major role in community commemorative activities and must observe Commonwealth flag protocols. It will be a matter for the Prime Minister to determine whether those criteria are met and, if he so decides, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs may then so declare it. However, he also has the power to revoke such a declaration if that memorial falls into disrepair, so the obligation remains on the people who own or manage the memorial to always keep it in good condition; otherwise, its status will be revoked. And that applies to the Ballarat memorial as well.

There were many people who had genuine concerns that this magnificent memorial needed to have an adequate supply of maintenance funding—that it was of such significance that that needed to be done. That was why they wanted to have the national memorial status: because it would have funds automatically flow to it. It cannot; it will not be done. The government has admitted that the previous government was correct. Yet, in the second reading speech, the minister has chosen to mislead the veterans community and to say that the government is delivering on a promise it said it would make, knowing it could not be done.

I find it terribly distressing that we now have a situation where the minister, who usually acts in good faith, has brought in a bill admitting that what the previous government said was correct and yet trying, with smoke and mirrors, to say they were delivering on a promise that could not be delivered upon. Now we read Budget Paper No. 2 and see that there is a lie printed in that budget paper. It is at odds with the legislation already introduced. The Australian people are entitled to rely upon budget papers, and this is the first time I have ever, in all the years I have been in this parliament, found this sort of thing to have occurred.

I said right from the beginning that, in moving the amendment that I am moving this morning, I do so with a sense of sadness. I repeat, seeing that the member is now in the chamber, that that sadness arises from the fact that this memorial had its origins under Deputy Speaker Bruce Scott, who is now sitting in the chair. As the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, he made the first grant of $50,000 to the fundraising committee to ensure that this magnificent memorial could be built. He then supplied another $150,000 in 2003 furthering the solid commitment that the Howard government always had to this memorial. There was subsequently another $300,000 granted. The magnificent work of David Baird OAM and of his co-chair, former member for Ballarat and now senator, Michael Ronaldson, was all done with altruistic commitment. There was never a political edge. I am sorry to say that that political edge only came about when the member for Ballarat thought that this was a way that she could get a few extra votes by politicising this memorial. This is just unacceptable.

See this speech in context