Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Hansard source

They do not get to set the terms; it is a thank you on my terms. I thank the Australian government for facing reality, the reality that the great national institution which stands in the midst of this city—in many ways the oldest national institution based in this city—the Australian War Memorial, has at last had the serious shortfalls in its recurrent budget addressed with a decision made today by the Gillard government to increase recurrent funding to that organisation by some $8 million a year. It has been a while coming. It leaves open some questions about capital expenditure, particularly with respect to the restoration of the First World War galleries, but it is a very positive step and will create certainty where there was none. It will provide a base on which to have proper preparation for the centenary of the beginning of the First World War, and particularly the landing at Gallipoli, properly marked by this nation in the coming few years. I am sure there are many people, not just at the War Memorial but also in the veterans’ communities and so forth, who will be breathing a very significant sigh of relief.

Of course this issue has not exactly crept up on us unawares; it has been very clear for some time that there was a substantial problem at the Australian War Memorial. That was highlighted by documents that were produced under FOI and published in the Australian newspaper a little while ago. They demonstrated concern not just by the council of the Australian War Memorial but also by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs itself, which repeatedly admitted concerns about the direction in which the AWM’s budget was heading. It said in advice 091127:

Unspent budget from the previous year has now become a regular source of funding in order to achieve a balanced budget position.

Salaries for positions relating to capital projects were funded from depreciation funding so as to relieve the general salary budget, however this strategy is not sustainable in the long-term.

As time went by, some of these warnings and concerns became more shrill. A later minute than that first one I quoted states:

The level of funding has now reached a point where is it no longer sufficient to deliver functions as defined in the Australian War Memorial Act 1980 to the standard expected by key stakeholders and the community at large.

Further, it goes on to say:

It should be noted that in the lead up to the 100th anniversary of WWI (2014-18) there is no doubt that the level of interest in commemorative activities and demands for information and assistance will increase significantly … the Memorial will not be in a position to meet that demand.

The option of closing the memorial was then canvassed, not by the memorial itself necessarily but in fact by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. It minuted that proposal to its incoming minister after the August 2010 election. Eventually the chair of the council, General Peter Cosgrove, wrote to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on 25 May last year and painted, frankly, a very dire picture. He said:

By FY14/15, staff levels are forecast to reduce by almost 50.

Further on:

The clear outcome of the staff losses is that the Memorial will be unable to make the contribution expected by Government and the nation.

He pleaded specifically for $5 million in recurrent funding to be restored to the memorial after cuts left it in that position. He said:

I believe that it would be useful for you and I to see the PM on this matter to plead our case for some necessary relief.

Interestingly, the government responded to that concern not by acceding immediately to the request but by commissioning a review to be conducted by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Interestingly, as of last week when I queried the minister for finance and the department about the state of that review, the answers I received were to the effect that a very rudimentary level of activity had occurred with respect to that review. I got the distinct impression, in fact, that very little had actually been done with respect to that review. That therefore led me to receive the announcement today that there would be $8 million extra in the budget for the Australian War Memorial with some surprise. This was a review which was meant to get underway and to report in time for announcements, if any, to be made in the context of the budget in May 2011. Here we are at the beginning of March and a decision has been announced.

As I say, I welcome that, but the question remains: why now? The answer is very clear. The answer is that this parliament, particularly the opposition, led by Senator Ronaldson, has taken every opportunity to make the case for the memorial’s funding to be restored. It has fought a trenchant and articulate case for there to be better funding for the Australian War Memorial. Senator Ronaldson, Mr Abbott and I have repeatedly made that case in a variety of settings. I am delighted that, following the announcement made in the middle of last week by Mr Abbott at the War Memorial itself that under a coalition government there would be an improvement of $5 million in the Australian War Memorial’s funding base, the government has followed suit. I am proud to have fought the fight with my colleagues Senator Ronaldson and the Leader of the Opposition to achieve that improvement in the memorial’s funding base.

It was a situation, however, that the community ought never to have faced. This funding should never have been taken away. It was taken away by blind adherence to a policy that said that every agency, every institution, no matter how small and no matter how important its role, should have an across-the-board cut made to it. The policy came a cropper. It was obvious for at least a year that that was the case, and unfortunately it took the pressure applied by the opposition in this relentless campaign to have the memorial’s funding restored to make the government realise that it needed to act. So it brought forward a decision that presumably it was contemplating making in the context of the budget and it made it this week. I welcome the decision, but I ask the Gillard government to ask itself: why has it taken that kind of pressure to get action? How many other decisions remain to be addressed because this government cannot prioritise its spending appropriately? How much more needs to be done that the opposition will need to draw this government’s attention to before it is acted upon?

This is a great day for those interested in properly documenting, recording and honouring the services of Australians in war and in peacekeeping operations. It is a great opportunity for an institution at the heart of this city and the heart of my community to be able to serve the purpose that has been entrusted to it by the Australian nation that it itself said it was not able to fulfil under the funding arrangements it had lapsed into in recent years. I thank my colleagues for their assistance in making this happen. I hope we never find ourselves in this unfortunate position again. These institutions have an enduring mission and role which extends well beyond the life of any one government. To allow their funding base to decline to the point where they cannot fulfil that role is a tragedy. I have to say with regret that, although I am grateful for the memorial having received this funding, it is not the only institution in the national capital which is facing the same kind of dilemma. That also needs to be addressed.