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

As I said, the provisions in clause 4(3) set the criteria out very specifically. I have to say to the minister, one can talk about intent and one can talk in global terms. You can wish something will happen but, when you are talking about the initiation of a policy and you start to put that policy into legislation—and I am sorry; I know you are not a lawyer—you must put it in specific terms. It is our obligation as legislators to make it as clear and precise as we possibly can. You said I am talking at the edges when I am talking particularly about the clauses in the bill itself. That is the reason we have this discussion in detail because we are looking specifically at the way in which those clauses may impact.

So I now want to look at the general nature of clause 4(3) and what is required for a memorial to be declared a military memorial of national significance. It says that it must be ‘of a scale, design and standard appropriate for a memorial of national significance and appropriately dignified and symbolic’. In whose judgement is that to be the test? Secondly, it must commemorate ‘Australia’s military involvement in a significant aspect of Australia’s wartime history’ and that must be its sole purpose. Again, there are subjective criteria there. The memorial must have a ‘major role in community commemorations’. What is the evidence to prove that? How does one judge whether that is the case or not?

The observation of Commonwealth flag protocols in relation to the memorial is another requirement. Does it have to be every day, all day or a majority of the year—what is the test to be applied? The memorial must be ‘owned and managed by a state or Northern Territory authority that has responsibility, including financial, for the ongoing maintenance of the memorial and for any refurbishments’. It can be an authority under either the state or the Northern Territory and it may be an authority which has an ongoing nature or an authority that does not. What happens if that authority folds? What judgement will the minister make? The memorial must comply with ‘applicable planning, construction and related requirements’. That seems to be a straightforward requirement. It must be on public land. It must be publicly accessible and there must be no entry fee. What happens if some barricade is erected? What sort of judgement will be made there? The memorial must be a ‘completed and functioning memorial’. I am not sure what a functioning memorial is, but no doubt there will be some criteria developed. The bill says the memorial must not be associated with ‘a commercial function that conflicts with its commemorative purpose’. What will be the judgement about that? Will people be able to buy replicas of the memorial or whatever the case may be?

I note that there is provision for a regulation-making power. These are such broad definitions and their impact is so great. Even if one achieves a declaration for a memorial in one’s own electorate that makes it a memorial of national significance, what happens when those tests are no longer met and that status is taken away? As I said, it can be taken away by the stroke of a pen and without the parliament having any say because it is specifically not a disallowable instrument. There is power to make regulations. I wonder whether the minister will comment on the comments that I have made and also tell me whether or not it is intended that there will be regulations drawn up and what will be the timetable for those regulations if that is to be the case.

See this speech in context