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

As I rise to speak to the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008, I would like to begin by pointing out that we are only having two speeches at this point in time—that is, mine and that of the member for Ballarat. The member for Ballarat is going to take maternity leave for her confinement. I know that everyone in the House will wish her well and hope that things go well and that she becomes the mother of a delightful young boy or girl—I do not know whether she knows, but I certainly do not. So we hope all that goes well.

In rising to speak this morning, I say that when I move the amendment that I am going to move it will be out of a sense of sadness, because this memorial in Ballarat began with the great blessing of the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Bruce Scott, who back in 1999 allocated $50,000 as a first grant. Then, in 2003, there was a second grant of $150,000, and then subsequently another grant of $300,000, so the Howard government actually gave half a million dollars for this memorial to be built. But it was the fundraising committee, headed by Mr David Baird OAM, and also the previous member for Ballarat, Mr Michael Ronaldson—now Senator Ronaldson—who worked so hard for this to be something of which the whole nation could be proud. It was a magnificent concept and, indeed, has been executed to become a magnificent memorial.

The whole issue became politicised when the present member for Ballarat, Ms Catherine King, tried to say that she would have the memorial declared a national memorial under the 1928 National Memorials Ordinance, which governs national memorials, so that it would attract ongoing maintenance funding. The former minister, Mr Bruce Billson, who was equally enormously supportive of the memorial for prisoners of war, took the quite proper position that it could not be declared a national memorial pursuant to that ordinance because that ordinance, in existence since 1928, very specifically sets out that those memorials may only be in Canberra. It then reached a very high political level, with the present Prime Minister intervening and saying that there was a lack of will on the part of the Howard government to declare it a national memorial and thereby have maintenance provided and that he would do anything he could to make sure that it became a national memorial.

That was the state that we went to the election in, with the simple statement that the Howard government minister Mr Bruce Billson had made: that it could not be done under the legislation but that he was very happy to give another form of recognition to the very fine memorial to prisoners of war in Ballarat. Mr Billson was vilified by the then opposition. When the new government was elected the present minister, Mr Alan Griffin—who has at every turn tried to be truthful with veterans and to enact his promises and deliver on them—acted quite out of character with his second reading speech when a bill was introduced entitled the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008, which is cited as:

A Bill for an Act to provide for certain memorials to have the status of Military Memorials of National Significance, and for related purposes—

and for which the explanatory memorandum says:

National memorials are recognised under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 and are restricted to memorials within the Australian Capital Territory. This Bill will recognise the national significance of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat and will enable, in the future, other memorials that meet specified criteria, to be recognised as a Military Memorial of National Significance—

exactly the situation which the Howard minister Bruce Billson was in favour of bringing about. But no: the present member for Ballarat, Ms King, was insistent that it become a national memorial. The Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, said it would become a national memorial. The minister said it would become a national memorial and, in his second reading speech, he said:

They—

the fundraisers—

built this magnificent memorial with fundraising appeals and their own hard work. They sought, and rightly received, significant funding from the previous government in support of their project—

which I have just outlined: half a million dollars. Then Mr Griffin said:

… to the lasting frustration of the people who made the Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial possible, the previous government refused repeated requests to recognise it as a national memorial.

The previous government’s position was that it could not be legally done. They argued that national memorials were located here in Canberra and that the ordinance did not allow national status to be given to memorials established outside the Australian Capital Territory.

That is precisely and accurately what the explanatory memorandum to the minister’s own bill says is the position. In other words, Mr Billson’s position as the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is vindicated by the publication of the explanatory memorandum to the minister’s own bill. The current minister, Mr Griffin, then went on to say:

The Australian Labor Party, and particularly here I would recognise the efforts of the member for Ballarat, insisted that it could be done, if the government was willing.

That was the contention of the member for Ballarat, who in the lead-up to the election politicised this splendid memorial, which to this point had been bipartisan; everybody had lauded the efforts, recognised the need for the establishment of this memorial and wanted to ensure that its maintenance would be there. But no: Ms King, the member for Ballarat, insisted that it could be done if the government were willing. The minister, Mr Griffin, went on in his second reading speech to say:

And so, in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, we promised—

that is, the Labor opposition promised—

that, if we were elected to government, it would be done—

that is, the memorial would be established as a national memorial. He then said:

Today, with this legislation, this government keeps that promise.

It does not. He then says:

This legislation will enable the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat to be declared a military memorial of national significance.

This is not a national memorial, because, exactly as the Howard government Minister for Veterans’ Affairs had said, a national memorial can only be in Canberra. The politicisation of this issue has made it a very sad saga. The minister, in his second reading speech, goes on to say:

This bill will also establish a process, separate to the National Memorials Ordinance 1928, to recognise other military memorials of national significance.

…            …            …

The legislation will enable the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, with the written approval of the Prime Minister, to declare a memorial to be a military memorial of national significance.

The minister says in his second reading speech that the bill will apply to eligible memorials located outside the Australian Capital Territory and, specifically, will not apply to the establishment of national memorials in the national capital. He further says:

The Commonwealth will not be responsible for funding or maintaining a memorial that has been declared a military memorial of national significance and so the memorial must also be owned or managed by an authority at the state, territory or local government level.

The responsibility for ongoing maintenance or any refurbishment of a declared memorial will remain with the authority that owns or manages it.

I want to make it very clear that the purpose of this bill is to provide an appropriate mechanism to recognise military memorials of national significance and not to allow for any provision or appropriation of financial support to be provided by the Commonwealth.

In the second part of his speech, he recognises that everything the former minister in the Howard government, Mr Billson, said was correct when he said that national memorials may only be in the ACT. The minister’s own bill and the explanatory memorandum say that this is the case. And yet, in his second reading speech—quite uncharacteristically, I must say—he totally misleads the veterans community and the rest of Australia, for that matter, when he says:

The previous government’s position—

that is us—

was that it could not be legally done—

that is, to make it a national memorial. He says it was ‘to the lasting frustration’ of those who raised the money to see it built that it was not to be declared a national memorial. He said:

The Australian Labor Party, and particularly here I would recognise the efforts of the member for Ballarat—

I recognise that the member for Ballarat has now come into the chamber—

insisted that it could be done, if the government was willing.

She said, in other words, that a national memorial could be declared under the 1928 ordinance if the government had the will. The bill itself recognises that that is totally and utterly untrue. The minister said in this speech:

... in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, we—

the Australian Labor Party—

promised that, if we were elected to government, it would be done.

It has not been done and it cannot be done. But the story gets worse. After the budget comes down, one reads, as one does, Budget Paper No. 2. I refer all honourable members and those who are interested to have a look at page 292 of Budget Paper No. 2 and read what is said under ‘Ballarat Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial’, where it has expenses for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. There are no figures under years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. But underneath it says:

The Government will provide $0.2 million over four years to the Ballarat City Council to assist with the maintenance of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial. The Government will also declare the Ballarat Memorial a national memorial.

One is entitled to believe Budget Paper No. 2—it is an important part of the budget papers—and yet it is telling an untruth. This is a smoke and mirrors exercise. The budget paper is simply a lie, because the bill introduced by the minister says it cannot be done and, in fact, creates a new criterion. In fact, the bill provides specifically that the Ballart Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial does not have to apply under this new criterion; it will automatically be given that status. If any other memorial outside the ACT is interested and wishes to become designated as a military memorial of national significance, it will have to apply under this bill and meet the criteria set out, which say it must be of an appropriate ‘scale, design and standard’ as well as being ‘dignified and symbolic’, in keeping with the purposes of a war memorial. It must be a memorial for the sole purpose of commemorating ‘a significant aspect of Australia’s wartime history’. It says it must have a major role in community commemorative activities and must observe Commonwealth flag protocols. It will be a matter for the Prime Minister to determine whether those criteria are met and, if he so decides, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs may then so declare it. However, he also has the power to revoke such a declaration if that memorial falls into disrepair, so the obligation remains on the people who own or manage the memorial to always keep it in good condition; otherwise, its status will be revoked. And that applies to the Ballarat memorial as well.

There were many people who had genuine concerns that this magnificent memorial needed to have an adequate supply of maintenance funding—that it was of such significance that that needed to be done. That was why they wanted to have the national memorial status: because it would have funds automatically flow to it. It cannot; it will not be done. The government has admitted that the previous government was correct. Yet, in the second reading speech, the minister has chosen to mislead the veterans community and to say that the government is delivering on a promise it said it would make, knowing it could not be done.

I find it terribly distressing that we now have a situation where the minister, who usually acts in good faith, has brought in a bill admitting that what the previous government said was correct and yet trying, with smoke and mirrors, to say they were delivering on a promise that could not be delivered upon. Now we read Budget Paper No. 2 and see that there is a lie printed in that budget paper. It is at odds with the legislation already introduced. The Australian people are entitled to rely upon budget papers, and this is the first time I have ever, in all the years I have been in this parliament, found this sort of thing to have occurred.

I said right from the beginning that, in moving the amendment that I am moving this morning, I do so with a sense of sadness. I repeat, seeing that the member is now in the chamber, that that sadness arises from the fact that this memorial had its origins under Deputy Speaker Bruce Scott, who is now sitting in the chair. As the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, he made the first grant of $50,000 to the fundraising committee to ensure that this magnificent memorial could be built. He then supplied another $150,000 in 2003 furthering the solid commitment that the Howard government always had to this memorial. There was subsequently another $300,000 granted. The magnificent work of David Baird OAM and of his co-chair, former member for Ballarat and now senator, Michael Ronaldson, was all done with altruistic commitment. There was never a political edge. I am sorry to say that that political edge only came about when the member for Ballarat thought that this was a way that she could get a few extra votes by politicising this memorial. This is just unacceptable.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find the statements that the shadow minister has just made offensive and I ask that she withdraw them.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Mackellar might be making a political point but not a personal attack on the member for Ballarat.

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

That is precisely what I am doing. What I am saying is that I will move this amendment in sadness for a simple reason. I could not help but overhear the comments from the Clerk to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The comments are quite accurate: the member for Ballarat is the next person to speak. The fact of the matter is that we are only having this debate this morning to accommodate the member for Ballarat, who, as I said right at the beginning, is going off for maternity leave. We all wish her a very successful and happy time with the birth of her child and we wish that everything goes well. But we are having this debate to accommodate her wish to speak. What I have said is absolutely true—this only became politicised when the member for Ballarat thought it could be a political point to win extra votes.

The amendment that I am intending to move reads as follows:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to the give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes that the bill creates a new category of memorial—namely a Military Memorial of National Significance;

(2)

notes that this new category of memorial, unlike ‘National Memorials’ under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928:

(a)

does not attract ongoing maintenance funding;

(b)

must not be located in the national capital; and

(c)

involves a decision of the Minister and the Prime Minister rather than the bi-partisan Canberra National Memorials Committee;

(3)

acknowledges as correct the stance of the previous Government that National Memorials, pursuant to the 1928 Ordinance, can only be located in the national capital; and

(4)

condemns the Government for:

(a)

playing politics with the veteran community;

(b)

claiming in the Budget Papers that it will declare the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat a national memorial when it has not done so; and

(c)

misleading the veteran community by claiming to have met an election commitment to declare the Ballarat Memorial a national memorial, when the Government has failed to do so”.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you moving an amendment?

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

I will move it at the end of my presentation and it will then be seconded. I wish to say further that of course there is an ex-POW memorial in the national capital, which is the chapel at Duntroon, which was the original chapel from Singapore. But that in no way detracts from the significance of the memorial in Ballarat. It is one that I hope to go and visit with reverence and with an appreciation of the work that everybody has put into it.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don’t think you will be welcome now.

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

I am disappointed to hear an interjection from the member for Ballarat, who says, ‘You won’t be welcome now.’ I find once again that this is the politicisation of a memorial that does not deserve to be politicised. It began with bipartisan support. It is something that needs to be restored and have that bipartisan support. It needs to be settled that there was no frustration caused by the previous government as the minister said in his speech. I read again what he said:

... to the lasting frustration of the people who made the Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial possible, the previous government refused repeated requests to recognise it as a national memorial.

That is what the minister said in his second reading speech. He then said:

The previous government’s position was that it could not be legally done. They argued that national memorials were located here in Canberra and that the ordinance did not allow national status to be given to memorials established outside the Australian Capital Territory.

He then said:

The Australian Labor Party, and particularly here I would recognise the efforts of the member for Ballarat, insisted that it could be done, if the government was willing.

The member for Ballarat was quite wrong. The minister has confirmed she was quite wrong. The explanatory memorandum to the bill introduced by the minister has shown that the member for Ballarat was quite wrong and that the stance taken was one of support, by the giving of $500,000, that the will of the Howard government to give ongoing support for maintenance was there and that at all times there was nothing but goodwill. The reason I stand here to point these out today is that it is totally out of character, from my point of view, to see the minister use spin, smoke and mirrors, and quite frankly deliberately untrue material in the second reading speech, which is an important part of the record if ever it needs to be looked at under the legislation that pertains to what courts may view.

And then to pick up Budget Paper No. 2—the condemnation lies with the Rudd government. It lies with the Treasurer, Mr Swan, because in his Budget Paper No. 2 there is a simple lie. Therefore, it is necessary to have this matter clarified and to have it aired in this place so that there can be proper reverence, so that there can be proper acknowledgement given to the work of the people who in fact brought this magnificent memorial about, so that the new category can become a successful one and so that those memorials that may wish to be included under the new legislation will be fairly appraised.

I do have some concern that it is only the Prime Minister of the day who will have to the right to say yea or nay. I do not find that to be a satisfactory outcome either. But I do hope that there will be some guidelines produced, which will mean that people who apply can have some confidence that it will not be politicised by the Prime Minister. I do think that the need for this new category—one was foreshadowed by the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Billson—will be seen to have been suggested in good faith, as it was. I hope that the member for Ballarat, who has been proven in her statements to be wrong, will accept that with good grace. And I hope to see that when people come with good grace, as I intend to do, there will be no attempt to politicise it further by telling me when I come that I will not be welcome because I have aired this matter in the parliament. I would find that totally unacceptable.

I will repeat: we are debating this today to accommodate the needs of the member for Ballarat. Certainly we wish her good health and a good outcome for her confinement. And when I do come to her electorate to visit the memorial I hope that we can perhaps visit together and pay the proper reverence to that memorial in a proper manner. I therefore move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to the give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes that the bill creates a new category of memorial—namely a Military Memorial of National Significance;

(2)

notes that this new category of memorial, unlike ‘National Memorials’ under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928:

(a)

does not attract ongoing maintenance funding;

(b)

must not be located in the national capital; and

(c)

involves a decision of the Minister and the Prime Minister rather than the bi-partisan Canberra National Memorials Committee;

(3)

acknowledges as correct the stance of the previous Government that National Memorials, pursuant to the 1928 Ordinance, can only be located in the national capital; and

(4)

condemns the Government for:

(a)

playing politics with the veteran community;

(b)

claiming in the Budget Papers that it will declare the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat a national memorial when it has not done so; and

(c)

misleading the veteran community by claiming to have met an election commitment to declare the Ballarat Memorial a national memorial, when the Government has failed to do so”.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. I do regret very much the speech that the shadow minister, the member for Mackellar, has chosen to make in this place. The reason that we are here this morning is not that I want this memorial recognised as a national memorial, not that the people of my electorate want this memorial recognised as a national memorial but that the Australian ex-prisoners of war community want this memorial recognised as a national memorial. They have lobbied not just me but a number of other people to have this memorial recognised, and there is some urgency in doing so. Yes, it is true that I am going on maternity leave shortly, but the urgency is about the age of the ex-prisoners of war community. Every day we are losing more and more of them and I do not want to see us lose any more before this is recognised. That is what the urgency of getting this bill through this place is about.

The bill will allow the government to officially designate the ex-prisoner of war memorial, which is located in Ballarat but is an Australian ex-prisoner of war memorial, as a national memorial. The previous government stated that the only way in which this could be done was if the ordinance to which the shadow minister referred was repealed. That is not what we are doing today. Today we are debating new legislation which sets up new criteria under which memorials outside of Canberra can be recognised. And one of the first to be recognised is the Australian ex-POW memorial located in my electorate, in Ballarat.

Neither the minister nor I have made any statements that are incorrect about the previous government’s position. They could have introduced this very legislation, but they did not because they did lack the political will to actually recognise and do something about the will of the Australian ex-prisoners of war community, who desperately wanted this memorial recognised. The Australian Ex-Prisoner of War Memorial in Ballarat will be the first designated national memorial outside of Canberra. As such, it is an important part of the way that we as a nation remember and commemorate the sacrifice of our men and women who served us in war.

The bill also sets out the steps required for a war memorial to be given national significance. These steps will ensure that the memory and achievements of our soldiers will be remembered in an appropriate way.

Australia’s military history is full of epic victories and defeats. The names we remember—Gallipoli, Villers-Bretonneux, Tobruk, Milne Bay, Kokoda and Long Tan—all tell of great struggle. They speak of courage and sacrifice, of death and destruction, of mates and enemies, of blunders and triumphs. These names that we speak every year on Anzac Day and again on Remembrance Day are markers of moments in our history that we choose never to forget—that we remember. Whether we remember parents, aunts and uncles or husbands and wives, we do remember. We remember the people that fought for Australia for a number of reasons. There is the personal pain of memory, the pangs of loss that many Australians still feel. There is a general feeling of sadness and pride in the memory of the men and women who defended this country. Australia stops every year to remember the dawn of 25 April.

We remember certain battles because of the stories of bravery and hardship that surround them. We remember certain places because they have tangible connections to the people that we remember. The Menin Gate at Ypres, Anzac Cove and the cemeteries of the Western Front are places where we site our memories. The War Memorial in Canberra is another such place where we choose to remember the men and women who gave their lives. From these sites we can see the absolute importance of having a physical space where memory can be located.

These sites of national remembrance serve as beacons for the community that are tangible relics of our deeply felt emotions, but Australia’s memories are not only sited here in Canberra. They are located in the kitchens and backyards of our nation. They are part of the fabric of our towns, our suburbs and our cities. The men and women who fought came from every part of this country, no more so than the country towns of Australia. There is much to be said for extending the significance of national memory to places outside the formal avenues of the national capital. Canberra’s memorials are beautiful, poignant places, but in recognising the way that the Australian military experience touched the whole of the country we should be able to remember at memorials of national significance outside the capital—and these places, very few in number, should not have any less significance than Canberra’s national memorials.

This bill allows memorials of national significance to be designated, and it lays down very strict and very narrow criteria under which they can be recognised as such. The Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in my electorate will be the first example of a memorial of national significance being designated outside of Canberra under this new legislation. The Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial recognises the experience of a unique group of veterans. It recognises a history and the stories that go beyond a specific battle or a specific war. These stories are often untold, the experiences kept from younger generations, the people who experienced them unwilling or unable to relive the trauma.

The stories are often not ones of loud roaring battle; they are stories of endurance against horrible conditions and stories of solidarity, and they are an expression of the great ability of humans to fight and struggle to keep their humanity in the face of barbarity, deprivation and, in the case of some 8,000 Australians, terrible deaths. They are melancholy stories. The Sandakan death march, the Burma railway and Changi form part of this litany of human sadness. They are also stories of quiet dignity and courage. Above all, they are stories that must be remembered. They are the stories of our ex-prisoners of war.

It is important that we as a society continue to remember the people who suffered these terrible experiences. It is and must continue to be part of our national story—that is, not to glorify war but rather to never forget its consequences, the terrible inhumanity that man can inflict on man, and to never forget why we must strive both at home and in the international community to prevent such conflicts.

It is important also to remember that the prisoner-of-war experience was not confined to male soldiers. Servicewomen also faced the spectre of imprisonment through Australia’s wars, particularly in the Second World War, when significant numbers of women were taken prisoner. Women behind the wire suffered terrible deprivation. They also faced a minefield of sexual violence that male prisoners by and large did not. Despite this, these women were brave, they were defiant and they survived. These women deserve to be remembered, and the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial commemorates their experiences.

To remember the people who suffered behind the barbed wire of Australia’s enemies through our conflicts, the Ballarat RSL, the Australian POW Association, the local community and the former federal member for Ballarat, Michael Ronaldson, banded together to build a memorial in Ballarat that respectfully and reverently commemorates the contribution of every Australian prisoner of war. Every Australian who has been held prisoner during wartime by the enemy has their name in a place of honour. In a tranquil setting it is possible for everybody to contemplate the lives of people who gave so much in the defence of their country.

There are many events in our nation’s history that we need to remember better, and the experience of our POWs in wars ranging from the Boer War to the Korean War needs to be publicly acknowledged. The memorial in Ballarat is a step towards recognising their contribution to the war effort. Prisoners of war suffered horribly, yet their experiences have not gained the same amount of attention that many others have. By way of an example, everyone in Australia remembers the terrible, tragic loss of the HMAS Sydney, with good reason. But Australia during World War II suffered a worse maritime tragedy which is not nearly so well remembered. The Montevideo Maru, a Japanese transport ship, was sunk by an American submarine on 1 July 1942. Unbeknownst to the Americans—and the Japanese gave no indication—the ship was carrying over 1,000 Australian prisoners of war in its hold. The ship went down, with no survivors. This remains Australia’s greatest maritime loss of life. The memorial in Ballarat commemorates this event. It lists the names of those involved and it provides a place for people to commemorate the brave men and women who died.

The memorial in Ballarat does not take away from the national POW memorial here in Canberra, the Changi Chapel. That is a very important memorial. It plays a very important role in recognising the terrible circumstances experienced by POWs in Changi. However the chapel, while an important part of the War Memorial, does not cover the full gamut of POW experience.

The Australian Ex-POW Memorial in Ballarat provides for every Australian POW. It lists all 35,000 names of those who were prisoners of war. The memorial in Ballarat teases out this strand of Australia’s military history so that we can see it in its full detail. The 35,000 names on the walls of the memorial tell of a continuity of experience from the Boer War to the perilous conditions behind German lines in the First World War, the camps in North Africa, the deprivation and brutality experienced by Australians captured by the Japanese army in the Pacific, and the experience of Korean War veterans in North Korean camps.

There is a need for a more inclusive national memorial for prisoners of war because their experiences were unique and need to be recognised as such. Their wars were not fought with bullets. They were fought in much simpler ways. They were fought by keeping their dignity, by staying alive, by doing every single thing they could to keep their mates alive. Their wars were fought by surviving back-breaking labour, by attempting to escape at every turn. Their weapons were their stoicism, their humour and their mates.

Remembrance is an important strand in the life of the Australian national community. As the events of Anzac Day continue to show every year, Australians want to remember the people who fought and died for them on the battlefields of the 20th century. There is a real need to understand and commemorate that experience. There is a tangible sense of the legacy that these men and women left for Australians to take up as we move into the future.

It is proper that we make it possible for our national remembrance to be undertaken outside Canberra. Australians remember their fallen all around the world. They remember them in Gallipoli in record numbers. They remember them as they walk the Kokoda Track. Australians also remember their fallen in the small local memorials, in the larger ones in our capital cities, in their churches and in their backyards. Remembrance can not be confined to one place, nor should it be. The Ex-POW Memorial in Ballarat is one such place where Australians remember the people who served them.

This memorial is unique. It lists the names of every POW who was ever captured by the enemy in all the conflicts in which Australians fought. No other memorial in the country does this. The memorial is of significant size, befitting the huge number of people that it seeks to commemorate, and I really do look forward to the shadow minister coming to visit and I will very much welcome her when she comes to see just how magnificent a memorial it is.

It is set amongst the Ballarat Botanical Gardens alongside Lake Wendouree and just near the Avenue of Prime Ministers. It consists of a stark granite wall, 130 metres long, engraved with the names of all 35,000 men and women who were taken as prisoners of war. At the centre of the memorial stand six stone obelisks displaying the names of the countries where Australians were held prisoner. The end of the path is a wall, simply engraved with the words ‘Lest we forget’. In less drought-stricken times water flows around the memorial and into a reflection pool, symbolising life and cleansing, birth and rebirth. The memorial is a fitting place to remember the contribution of those men and women who suffered in the name of Australia.

The memorial in Ballarat was built as a result of the hard work of a number of community organisations including: the Ballarat RSL; the Australian POW Association; the City of Ballarat; the former federal government, which contributed a substantial amount of funding; and the entire Ballarat community as well as the Victorian state government. I would particularly like to thank David Baird, OAM, an extraordinary man who, I am very proud to say, I would count amongst my friends. He is also someone, I am proud to say, who will be delighted that this legislation is going through the House. As a POW himself, his experiences of life have been quite extraordinary. There is also Les Kennedy, OAM, and Liz Heagney, who did all of the hard work to compile the 35,000 names. I want to thank all of them for their incredible efforts over many years to construct the memorial.

The memorial is a place where all Australians can come and pay their respects to people who gave so much in the defence of our nation. Many of the names are recognisable. Many of them tell the amazing stories that exist within the families of the 35,000 men and women who have served this country and who were made prisoners of war. In my view, no other place in Australia plays the same role in gathering together the full range of POW experiences into one place. It is for this reason that we should recognise the Australian Ex-Prisoner of War Memorial in Ballarat as nationally significant. For those reasons I support this bill. I commend the bill to the House and I really do hope that, despite the amendments that have been moved, those in opposition both here and in the other place have the confidence to do the same.

Debate (on motion by Mr Farmer) adjourned.