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

The reason I said that a second alternative would have been to have had a Ballarat prisoner of war memorial specific bill is that it then the bill could have provided ongoing funding for that memorial and the Commonwealth could have remained responsible for that memorial. I do believe that the nature and history of this memorial is such that it was deserving of such status. But the government has chosen to create this new category. As I listen to the debate that has gone on in the chamber, I heard again and again members talk about memorials in their own electorate—ones which, I would imagine, people are going to be making applications to have listed. The criteria are set out in the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 for how the Prime Minister has to be satisfied. Firstly, the minister has to be satisfied that the criteria, which are very broad, are met, and then the Prime Minister has to sign off on it in writing. Then it can be declared. I suspect that, in developing just what the meaning of these protocols or these criteria are, some people are going to become disappointed. The other thing that has not come out in the debate to this point is that the government retains the right to publish in the Gazette a revocation of such a declaration. It simply says in the bill:

if:

…            …            …

(i)

the Minister is no longer satisfied that the memorial meets the criteria specified in subsection 4(3); or

(ii)

the memorial has been altered since the declaration was made, and the Minister has not approved the alteration under section 5; and

If that is the case, it becomes automatically no longer so from the time of that signature or that gazettal; it immediately becomes a memorial which no longer has the title of military memorial of national significance.

The really disappointing part of this is that, because we are dealing with something that is so important in our national psyche and because of our national concern with memorials, which are important to us, the bill specifically declares that it is not a legislative instrument, which means that it is not subject to tabling disallowance in both houses of parliament, which in turn means that the parliament will have no say on whether or not that revocation of status of military memorial of national significance remains or fails. It will merely be on the personal interpretation of the minister of the day and the Prime Minister as to whether or not the memorial is, for instance, being modified in a way they do not approve of. Perhaps it is no longer playing a major role in the community or perhaps the flag protocols are not being observed. Indeed, because there is no money provided, it might have become run down and might not have been preserved.

By saying that we have this important new category of military memorial of national significance which, unlike a national memorial in the ACT, can by the stroke of a pen have its status taken away without the parliament having a say and with this legislation specifically saying that there will be no money or responsibility taken by the Commonwealth, I think we have created a difficulty for the way ahead. I would like the minister to respond.

See this speech in context