Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I note the contribution of the member for Mitchell; it was very passionate. In that spirit, in terms of declaring any particular interest, before I move to the motion raised by the member for Berowra, I will declare my particular interest, as a flight lieutenant in the RAAF Reserve, No. 23 (City of Brisbane) Squadron. Just before you get interested, I will just declare that I do not receive any money or any remuneration—no profit under the Crown. I do my work as a volunteer and do not get remunerated. I am not in a band. I have been in a band, but that did not receive any federal support. In fact, some could argue that it received almost no support at all! But that is another story for another day—on the curse of YouTube.

I turn to the more serious matter of the motion raised by the member for Berowra, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, who I always listen to and have a lot of respect for. I am on committees with him. However, I do think that this motion is a little unnecessary and a little bit misguided and, I would suggest, even perhaps an interference with the Chief of Army's duties to administer the Army in an efficient and effective manner.

I am from Brisbane, not from Sydney; I know that the member for Mitchell and the member for Berowra would have a better understanding of some of the decisions of the Chief of Army in terms of how they apply. Under the Howard government, in those times, the changing of the guard and the band accompanying it at the Sydney barracks was a decision that was made for lots of reasons; it is not for me to inquire into. It was a decision made by the Chief of Army and I support that decision.

As I said in my declaration of interest, it is as a legal officer in the RAAF Reserve, not the Army or the Navy. But my understanding is that this motion does incorrectly refer to regimental bands as 'reserve bands'. I am sorry I did not hear the earlier conversations or whether that was corrected; I was otherwise engaged. But this motion refers specifically to the New South Wales Lancers' band and similar bands. My understanding is that such bands are in fact regimental bands. Yet the motion calls on the government to continue to support the Army Reserve bands, and my understanding is that this is factually incorrect.

Obviously, the Gillard Labor government already supports reserve bands and will continue to do so. I am advised that we support six regional reserve bands and over 20 Army Reserve personnel who work in four Army support bands. These personnel and bands are part of the Australian Army Band Corps, or the AABC. The government supports six regional reserve bands, and over 20 Army Reserve personnel who work in four Army support bands. These personnel and bands are part of the Australian Army Band Corps. Following a review into Army bands in May 2011, a decision was made by the Chief of Army to transfer the resourcing of regimental bands from the Commonwealth to the associated regimental associations. Regimental bands are staffed by volunteers from both permanent and part-time Army personnel from the parent regiment. The members of these bands are already employed by the Army in other roles. For example, they may be employed by the Army as a cook, but volunteer to play in the regimental band in their spare time, and perhaps even for no remuneration. Regimental bands are established to provide musical services primarily for a specific unit or regiment.

The decision is an administrative matter which is delegated to the Chief of Army and, as I am sure those opposite would know, respecting that chain of command is pursuant to the Commonwealth Defence Act 1903. This motion, as I read it, proposes to interfere with the decision of the Chief of Army. The Chief of Army made a decision to no longer replace the musical instruments, uniforms and other equipment held by the voluntary regimental bands—

See this speech in context