Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for my youthful exuberance and the word 'you'—but there is a public outrage at the cuts that our Defence Force is going through. The member for Canberra tells me that this wasn't the government's decision; this was General Morrison. General Morrison issued this decision, yet after the public outrage this punitive policy was fiddled, it was changed. The Sydney Morning Herald on 1 October 2001 said that the 14 regimental bands will be allowed to keep their existing instruments but will not be provided any support to maintain those instruments or to purchase new instruments. So, Member for Canberra, what you are saying is that the Chief of Army made this decision and then, after this great public outcry, General Morrison—a man I know well and a man not prone to changing his mind easily, may I say—suddenly changed his mind without any instruction from the minister and without any political engagement or fiddling at all. May I suggest this is what happened, Member for Canberra: that the government, under its strategic reform program, has forced the Army into a range of dreadful cuts, as it is doing right now. After the great outrage, could the minister have said: 'Oh, Chief, this is not going well; could we make a little bit of a change here'? Do you think that could have happened, Member for Canberra, or do you think the Chief of Army simply changed his mind because this was an administrative decision of the Army and nothing to do with the government of the day? If you are suggesting that, I find that hardly credible and I struggle to believe it.

The member for Berowra has quite rightly noted that Labor's mean-spirited policy will put significant financial strain on Army reservists and their regimental associations connected with them. These associations so often made up of ex-regimental members—and I can attest to that from personal experience—are 100 per cent committed to their units—100 per cent committed to their communities and the units they serve with.

The motion simply asked for a little bit of goodwill. For all the fiscal responsibilities you talk about, how about community responsibility? How about responsibility for the unique nature of military service? But, then again, you will not index DFRDB pensions, so you are saying what your view of the unique nature of military service is. How about a bit of goodwill to assist 14 regimental bands, their associations and the communities that serve our nation? That would not go astray.

See this speech in context