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

I am sorry; I was not alerted to the fact that there would be a significant amount of questioning occurring at the consideration in detail stage—there is no requirement that it be done—so I apologise to the House for having to seek further advice on aspects. It is getting much more like a dealing in the Senate, but that is fine. On the criteria with respect to the operation of the bill and how a decision will be made, what we have there, if you like, are the parameters—the basic bones for consideration. Yes, there will be an element of testing how those matters will be considered over time. I will use an example which relates to the operation of my portfolio now with something which I think is similar although not exactly the same. I think it makes the point by way of example. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has responsibility for the use of the word ‘Anzac’—where it can be used and in what circumstances. There are regulations with respect to that which outline a number of sets of circumstances for when it can be used in a commercial setting—for example, anzac biscuits cannot be called ‘cookies’ and so on and so forth. On a regular basis—and on a much more regular basis than I expect for applications under this legislation—applications come in from various sources seeking approval to use the term ‘Anzac’. When they do, applicants are required to consult with the department around the question of what circumstances they will use it in.

As is always the case in these circumstances, you can have only so much prescription around the question of the operation of the regulations, and there is often a need for some interpretation as to how you would apply the regulations. In those circumstances—and I note that Mr Deputy Speaker Scott would be aware of this from his time as Minister for Veterans’ Affairs—sometimes a judgement is required to be made as to whether or not the guidelines have been met. What do you do in those circumstances? You endeavour to form a judgement on the basis of advice. Your principal source of advice will be the department, but if there are other circumstances which may be taken into account then you could consult—and I have consulted—with ex-service organisations about their view and sometimes also with local authorities.

On this issue, those criteria give you the basis to work from. The minister will seek advice from the department and from other organisations like the RSL—in my view—and come to a decision. If that decision is viewed as being the wrong decision, I guess that will be tested in the court of public opinion. But I stress that I do not believe that we will face this situation on a regular basis, and I do believe that we have to test the legislation and any criteria on the basis of the applications received. I certainly believe that there will be a need to see how that develops over time, but I am conscious of the fact that this is a significant set of criteria which will not enable many very good memorials to meet. However, I believe that there are some that will. That will be tested through the application process in consultation with the department and the ex-service community.

See this speech in context