Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I am glad you believe that commentary about appropriate consultation is histrionics. I can give you some histrionics if you want it but I put this to you: is it histrionics to question the government about its consultation processes? Is it histrionics to say that it is inappropriate for one minor political party, which just happens to be your government partner, to get information that is not provided to ex-service organisations? As I said to you before, these are not groups that spring up after a good spring rain. These are the peak bodies in this country. Are you telling the chamber that it is histrionics to demand why any political party has an arrangement and a scenario of consultation when those groups that are actively and intimately involved in this process do not? If that is the government's definition of histrionics then, quite frankly, heaven help us.

The simple fact is that we have been advised today that the RSL was given a copy of this document only after this debate started and after the government had been caught out in relation to the lack of consultation. That is not histrionics. The simple fact is that if it had not been raised today this matter would have gone through without the RSL having had any input into it whatsoever; it would have been a fait accompli. The Vietnam Veterans Federation would not have had any input into it; it would have been a fait accompli. Legacy would not have had any input into it; it would have become a fait accompli. If that is the way that you want to carry out your consultation process, that is fine. If the Greens think that is an appropriate consultation process, that is fine. But everyone be on notice: what the Greens say and what the Greens do are often two entirely different matters.

The Greens were given the opportunity today to say, 'For the sake of three or four hours, we are going to clarify this situation and clarify whether those peak bodies are supportive of this addendum.' Then petty politics entered into this debate. You are not prepared for the sake of four or five hours to concede a bit of ground on this matter. You are driven by petty pride for a very simple matter. There is no reason why this chamber could not have dealt with this matter later today or in the morning—no reason at all. But petty pride means that the government and the Greens are not prepared to accept that the right thing should be done in this case. I am absolutely staggered that the Greens have been prepared to compromise themselves to this extent by not acknowledging that three or four hours can get some serious clarification. I am utterly amazed, given the need for the government and the department to maintain close working relationships with these ESOs, that they also have not been prepared for the sake of three or four hours to do so. If that is histrionics, you have got it.

I ask the parliamentary secretary: in the last paragraph, which, of course, has not been circulated to anyone other than the Greens and now the chamber today, when will the Repatriation Commission be issuing appropriate policy guidance, and has that been drafted yet?