Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Ronaldson. I refer to the recent budget cuts to the Australian War Memorial's travelling exhibition program and the claim by the minister's spokesperson that AWM was advised by DVA in May that, because of the requirement to fund a number of initiatives, the travelling exhibitions program was under review. I also refer to comments by the Australian War Memorial that: 'At no stage before Thursday, 14th of August, were we given any indication that future funding for the travelling exhibitions was at risk.' Who is correct: the minister or the Australian War Memorial?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only assume that Senator Conroy bought some fish and chips over the weekend, because, quite frankly, this was in the papers about three weeks ago. He is hardly on top of his brief if he has had to wait this amount of time. Let me be absolutely clear about our relationship with the Australian War Memorial and then I will compare it with that of the Australian Labor Party, who had put the AWM under such pressure that they were considering closing the memorial—a national icon in this country—for one day a week.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, the point of order goes to direct relevance under the standing orders. In fact, the minister has flagged his intention not to be directly relevant. He spoke about what he would say. There is only one question in the question put by Senator Conroy: 'Who is correct?' We have a factual statement from the minister's spokesperson and a factual statement from the War Memorial. They are inconsistent. The minister is simply asked: 'Who is correct?'

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Wong. I do agree there was one question. But can I tell you I am having a lot of difficulty, particularly because of you, Senator Carr, in hearing part of the answer. I indicate to the minister that he has one minute and 25 seconds left to answer the question and advise the minister of the question.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What Senator Conroy should be aware of in relation to decisions made about the travelling exhibition—the smaller travelling exhibition, not the national travelling exhibition; I presume he knows the difference between the two—is that this government inherited a situation in veterans affairs where we have 72,000—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's this got to do with the question?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you do not think what is happening to 72,000 men and women who have served this nation since 1999 is relevant then I really take great pity on you, Senator Carr.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I let the clock go on little to see whether we would get an answer. In terms of direct relevance, as has been pointed out, there was only one question asked and it was on the comments about the touring exhibit and when they knew about the future funding. It was not about the value; it was about when the Australian War Memorial was advised of the future funding cut.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Moore. The minister has 46 seconds left to answer the question. I remind the minister of the question.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite are clearly not interested in what is being done for these returned men and women.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

I do not need any help from you, Senator Carr, I can assure you.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock. Senator Moore, I am not going to entertain a point of order on relevance in a matter of just seconds after the minister recommenced his answer.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, it is not a point of order on relevance. It is about a reflection made on the people on this side of the chamber in that last comment. It is not a point of order on direct relevance but on a reflection made on people on this side of the chamber.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not agree there is a point of order, Senator Moore. Minister you have the call.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr President. In May this year, the Australian War Memorial was advised that the longer term funding of this $800,000 travelling exhibition was under review. The reason for that is that this government is determined to ensure that the dollars we spend in this department are given to— (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to documents released to the opposition under freedom of information which show that the Australian War Memorial was not advised of the cut to the travelling exhibition until mid-August. Why did the minister mislead the public last time? And he is misleading the public again.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I do not think you can assert that.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Conroy, you have just accused the minister of misleading in two separate contexts.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

You are reflecting on a member of this chamber. I will ask the minister to answer what part of that question he wishes to answer.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Order Senator Wong! Minister, you have the call.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Conroy was not listening, I will repeat it again. The Australian War Memorial was advised in May that, because of the requirement to fund a number of initiatives, the travelling exhibitions program was under review. They were advised in May that it was under review. The decision was made in August. The imputation in Senator Conroy's question is that this was a stroke of the pen in early August without any notification that it was under review. Quite frankly, I am not concerned about what the opposition has apparently got off the back of a truck. I know that in May, because of the requirement for us to fund— (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I draw your attention, Minister, again, to the comments of the Australian War Memorial:

At no stage before Thursday, 14th of August, were we given any indication that future funding for the travelling exhibitions was at risk.

Given that this program has run for over 17 years and allowed Australians across the country to explore our military history, will the minister reinstate the funding for the Australian War Memorial travelling exhibitions?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to your second question is no. In relation to the first part of your question, in May of this year the Australian War Memorial was advised that, because of the requirement to fund other initiatives, this program was under review. Some of those initiatives, Senator Conroy, you might be interested in. A part of them is engagement with the 72,000 contemporary veterans who have served this nation since 1999. You should be aware, Senator Conroy, that we are trying to ensure that the mistakes that this nation made post-Vietnam are not repeated for these men and women. We are determined to ensure that they have the best access to mental health services, they know what mental health services are being provided and we are engaging these contemporary veterans in a fora that they understand—that is social media and other— (Time expired)