Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Indeed. My point, though, is that, in respect to the actual situation, that is the difference. On the question of what occurs in relation to the ACT and national memorials in the ACT, it is my understanding that there are different approaches taken around the question of funding provision for maintenance et cetera with respect to some memorials which are national memorials in the ACT. My understanding is that, for example, the financial support for maintenance of the police memorial is provided through police sources. I believe that to be the case. I have seen a report to that effect. I also understand, from some discussion that I have had, that different sources sometimes provide the financial support or have, on occasions, passed that financial support on to authorities that have then had responsibility. I do not think it is quite as clear-cut as what has been suggested.

My point, though, is that, if we get into an argument about funding and funding sources, I think we take away from the significance of what we are supposed to be talking about here, which is about recognition of how significant a memorial is. I do not think we want to get into a situation of arguing that it is about the question of how much money is provided in the longer term or get into a situation of saying a memorial that cost $5 million is better than one that cost $7 million or one that cost $3 million. The point here that we need to stick to and emphasise is that it is about the significance of what the memorial stands for and the size and nature of its construction—it is about the issues that go through the bill about what the criteria should be to judge these sorts of matters. My point is that this provides a vehicle for memorials outside the national capital to be considered on that question of whether they qualify as national memorials, and we ought not to be in a situation where we focus that onto a question about provision of national funding. Frankly, it misses the point.

See this speech in context