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

To pick up a couple of points there, clause 8 of the bill is actually on consultation. It does not give specifics, but it says:

For the purpose of making decisions under this Act, the Minister may consult any persons or bodies that the Minister thinks it appropriate to consult.

I think that is a standard situation, frankly, but it states the fact that consultation will be part of what occurs. The shadow minister referred to the issue around the ordinance and its operation with respect to consideration of memorials in the ACT. I guess the argument there is that the committee itself, if you like, is a consultative mechanism. The bottom line is that it is not required to consult with anyone either. The bottom line here is to have a bit of common sense, and frankly that is what we will be looking to try and do. I can assure you that that is the intention of the bill and the intention of the government in the future. I think we are really getting bogged down here a bit.

I will go now to the other points made by the shadow minister. The shadow minister’s position is that it would have been preferable to have passed a bill on the Ballarat POW memorial as a single piece of legislation. If that was the only national memorial that we thought ought to be considered or if we thought that we ought be in a situation where we accept that, other than for a specific location, a national memorial cannot be located outside of the national capital then that would be an approach one could take. Frankly, I would not want to see a situation where, every time a memorial was mentioned as being worthy of consideration as a national memorial, we would have to deal with the situation by individual, specific pieces of legislation. I do not think that would be a sensible use of the parliament’s time with respect to considering these matters.

There was a suggestion made in relation to the cookie reference that it is not a particularly appropriate comparator. This relates to the use of the term ‘Anzac’, which has particular significance in our society, which the shadow minister well knows. It is something which on occasions, and rightly so, is treated with tremendous reverence within the Australian community. That is why there are regulations which relate to its use. That is why it requires a ministerial decision around the question of when it can be used. It is because of many of the very criteria contained in this bill and the intention of this bill with respect to national memorials that in fact it is a very relevant comparator to use in the circumstances. It is about appropriate recognition for terms, or in this case for monuments, that are significant within the Australia community.

On the question of whether regulations will be required in future in relation to this matter, it is quite possible. Do I have a timetable on actions with respect to that? At this stage, I do not. I am happy to get back to the shadow minister with respect to that. I now understand that the shadow minister’s intention is that this bill will go through the other place unamended. That is not something we were clear on until just now. We have a view about how something will operate but, while there is still a question mark over what in fact is being passed, it is best to wait to see what we end up with before we go to the question of what our next step will be beyond that. The fact of the matter, though, in respect of this particular issue is that this is legislation which provides a capacity missing within the Australian community to deal with national memorials outside the national capital and therefore it ought to be supported.

See this speech in context