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

I thank the member for Solomon for his question. Today is a special day in our history: it is the first official proclamation day with respect to the Battle for Australia. It is a time when the parliament and the people can unite to consider the question of what our country went through so many years ago in the dark days of 1942 and 1943. I know that the Prime Minister went to the Australian War Memorial today, and I believe the opposition leader did so as well, to commemorate this occasion, and the shadow minister went to the service in Sydney. The reason that I am late for question time—although I am sure that no-one really cares—is the fact that I was at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne at what was a very special ceremony that was attended by several thousand children and representatives right across the board. It was an occasion befitting the importance of this occasion in terms of our history.

The circumstances of what we faced as a nation at that time were in fact very dire. The then Prime Minister, John Curtin, said after the fall of Singapore: ‘The fall of Singapore opens the battle for Australia,’ and, within days, Darwin was bombed for the first time—which I know is an event that is very important to the member for Solomon and the people of Darwin. Northern Australia was subsequently bombed some 70 times. The people of Australia—seven million people at that stage—were overwhelmingly united in a war effort that encompassed both the military and the civilian aspects of our society. If you were not in uniform, you were working to support those who were in uniform. Nearly one million Australians were actually in uniform at that time all over the world and, in particular, defending our nation on its northern extremes.

There has been quite a bit of debate about the nature of the Battle for Australia. Does it really constitute a battle? Does it really meet the definition? It has been an issue that some historians have tried to wax lyrical about in recent times. I would like to address a couple of issues on this occasion. One argument is that it was not a battle because it was a series of battles. History tells us that that is not the way that we define these things in historical terms. The Battle of the Atlantic was in fact a range of engagements. The Battle of Britain went over a considerable period of time. Battles and their historical locations in history and their significance are not normally determined just by geography or time.

Beyond that, an argument that has been put and argued strongly by some is that there were no invasion plans and therefore there was no invasion or any invasion that was likely. History tells us that the success that occurs on the military field determines what opportunities are presented and developed. The fact is that, because Australian and Allied forces fought hard and defended this country and its environs well at places like the Coral Sea, the Kokoda Track, Milne Bay and elsewhere in the islands, the plans of the Japanese were not achieved. The circumstances to which they might have turned their minds to achieve did not happen.

We can be very proud of what our forebears did so many years ago. We should recognise their courage and sacrifice at a time when the nation really needed it. We could also say—and this is my view—that this is something that encapsulates what occurred in World War II. It does not detract from the many Australians who fought the Germans in Bomber Command or in North Africa, Greece or Crete. It is, if you like, representative of the major commitment that we had as a nation at a time when we needed to have it. I urge everyone to get behind Battle for Australia Day in the future. I say to all of you that the commemorations that I was at today, and what I have seen of other commemorations that occurred today, are a credit to all those involved.

See this speech in context