Anzac Memorial (Building) Amendment Bill

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer), on behalf of the Hon. M. R. Egan [5.32 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I believe the bill enjoys the favour of all members of the House. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Anzac Memorial building in Hyde Park is one of the most significant structures in the City of Sydney. It is of tremendous significance to all the people of this country who have been touched by war. It is the major building in this State dedicated to the memory of those who have served their country in war. While taking its name from the forces comprising the Australia and New Zealand Army Corp who landed at Gallipoli, the Anzac Memorial was originally dedicated to all of the forces involved in World War I. Anzac Day has come to be the focus for our acknowledgment of the debt we owe to all of the men and women who have suffered in all of the wars that have involved our citizens.

In a similar way, the Anzac Memorial building has come to be dedicated to all servicemen and servicewomen in the conflicts that have involved our nation since that time. On 30 November 1984, the fiftieth anniversary of the original dedication of the memorial building, the Anzac Memorial was formally rededicated as a memorial to all Australians who served their country in war. Section 8C of the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act, added in 1984, authorised the dedication of the memorial as the principal State war memorial. The Anzac Memorial building is a precious and powerful symbol in our national life. Fittingly, it is located as the central axis for Hyde Park south. Dedication of the site for a war memorial took place by notification in the Government Gazette of 9 January 1931. The building was made possible by extensive public appeals that commenced in 1916. In 1923, Parliament enacted the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act which established a trust to administer the funds that had been raised.

The Act also charged the trustees with the erection of the memorial building and with the care, management and maintenance of the building and the site upon which it is erected. For this reason, the Act contains the power for the making of by-laws for the protection of the building and the dedicated site. When originally enacted, section 9 of the Act imposed a limit of £20 ($40) as the maximum penalty for a breach of the by-laws. This was increased in 1987 to $200. By-Law 12 under the Act makes it an offence to damage the memorial building or any part of the dedicated area. The current maximum penalty available for a breach of this by-law is $40.

As honourable members will be aware, the memorial building was damaged earlier this year as a result of a serious graffiti attack. There have been other incidents of damage to the memorial and inappropriate behaviour on the dedicated area. The Government has responded by providing funds for improved security of the memorial. In addition, the Government is bringing forward this bill to increase the penalties available under the Act for vandalism of the memorial. These penalties are in line with the maximum penalties available under the Summary Offences Act. The bill proposes three amendments. It amends section 9 (3) to increase the maximum penalty that may be imposed for a breach of a by-law from $200, set in 1987, to 20 penalty units, currently $2,200.

It increases the maximum penalty that can be awarded for a breach of by-law 12 relating to damage to the memorial to 20 penalty units; it increases the maximum penalty for other offences under the current by-laws to 10 penalty units; and a new provision, section 11, is inserted to enable a Local Court to order a person who has been convicted of an offence under the by-laws to pay compensation for damage caused by the commission of the offence, up to a maximum limit of 20 penalty units. The proposed increase in penalties and provision for the payment of compensation for damage to the memorial will send a clear message to the community that attacks on the Anzac Memorial building will not be tolerated. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.33 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I lead on behalf of the Opposition in support of the bill. Even though it has widespread support, a number of matters need to be teased out in the course of its passage through this House. The bill is designed to increase the penalties imposed on those who criminally damage the Anzac Memorial located in Hyde Park, and to provide Local Courts with the necessary powers to order any person convicted of such malicious damage to pay the costs in full or part thereof of the repair or restoration of damage caused by that person’s criminal conduct. It is a growing trend in our community for some people to use graffiti as their means of gaining status among their peers, irrespective of the damage or personal grief they cause in the process.

For some of these offenders, who like to refer to themselves as "artists", status comes about by saturating a well-utilised area to ensure maximum promotion. Others elect to tag a site of high risk, and seek to achieve recognition by raising the degree of difficulty in doing so. Such sites would include the tagging of the exterior of a train while the train was mobile, or the tagging of bridges or walkways, necessitating the offenders putting themselves at some risk. Another type of tagging is damaging property with a high-risk value, that is a high risk of being caught, such as a police station or other well-patronised public areas. Current legislation endeavours to target this form of criminal activity, but in maintaining its tradition in fighting crime the Government relies purely on passing laws
Page 1169
thereby creating offences while, at the same time, immediately wiping its hands and saying, "We have fixed that problem. We have done that. What is next?"

The Carr Government will be remembered as one that passed a number of laws thereby creating new offences, without seeking to put in place the mechanisms by which the laws could be enforced effectively. The bill, which the Opposition fully supports, will fall exactly the same way as other legislation has fallen under this Government’s mismanagement of the New South Wales Police Service. Police in this State can be given all the legislative power in the world to make an arrest, but if they do not have the resources to do the job it is all a waste of time. The bill will increase the maximum penalty available for persons convicted of damaging the Anzac Memorial from $200 to $2,200 or, as it is referred to in the bill, up to a maximum of 20 penalty points.

Unless the Government is prepared to give the Police Service the resources to get on with the job of enforcing this law, the penalty will be ineffectual. The legislation will not work on its own. The people who are committing these sorts of offences do not differentiate between the penalties, whether it be a slap on the wrist or a gaol offence. If they realise it is fairly unlikely that they will be arrested as result of committing this offence they will pay no heed to the applicable penalty. Time and again we have heard from the Government about record budgets and record police numbers, but the figures do not add up. People do not feel any safer in the community. In the past couple of days, if not yesterday, a car-jacking occurred at Roselands in western Sydney. We heard some discussion about it today in the lower House.

Another incident of concern is the recent vicious assault on, and possibly robbery of, a member of Parliament that took place only a short distance from the front steps of this House. In fact, it was only a relatively short distance from the Anzac Memorial. At the same time, there is growing concern in the community, not visible by this Government for all intents and purposes, from social welfare organisations about a person or persons who have murdered a number of vagrants within a relatively short distance from the very same war memorial. The modus operandi is the same in all the murders. Death has occurred as a result of head injuries. But, once again, the resources are not there to enforce the laws. We are talking about the murder of vagrants.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Homeless people.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Homeless people, in terms of their lifestyle, that is correct. I am talking about serious assaults on members of Parliament. I am not trying to draw any relationship between those offences. I hear an interjection from the side, "What has it got to do with the war memorial?" The fact is that these sorts of offences are occurring within walking distance of the war memorial. Can any honourable member tell me how a simple increase in penalties for defacing the war memorial will somehow bring about a change in people’s attitudes and ensure that they will not deface the war memorial, when serious criminal offences are taking place in that very same area and are not being concluded in terms of an investigative process?

Significant criminal incidents are occurring in the area around the war memorial. The Opposition believes that the simple act of passing this legislation will not be the catalyst by which defacing the war memorial will cease. Members of this House should call upon the Government and the Leader of the Government in this House to take a message to the Minister for Police to relieve police officers of their responsibility of flying a desk, which has been the result of the unprecedented impact of this Government on the Police Service. Police officers should be brought back into the community to protect members of the community and public property. That is exactly what we are discussing in considering the provisions of this bill.

I have had considerable experience dealing with people who commit graffiti crime. As I said earlier, most graffiti criminals use their actions as a means by which to achieve status with their peers. This bill endeavours to prosecute the actions of another type of graffiti artist. Some members of the community do not seek status; rather, they seek to create public anger or, indeed, community grief as a result of their actions. Nowhere is that more evident than in attacks in recent years upon historic buildings and memorials - such as the Anzac Memorial - and, indeed, the Cenotaph.

The symbolism of the Anzac Memorial is a lasting legacy of the price paid by previous generations of Australians and New Zealanders for the protection of our liberty. Those soldiers protected not only our lives but also the lives of people from other nations. The Hon. B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn will describe the memorial’s significance to them as members of the armed services and what it means to others who are presently or have been in the past closely associated with the armed forces. I will not deal with that aspect in great detail now, other than to say that I look forward to their descriptions of what the Anzac
Page 1170
Memorial, the Cenotaph and other memorials throughout the nation mean to them, and the net effect of graffiti not only on people who are associated with the armed forces but also people in the wider community.

The reality is that some people in the community damage monuments such as the Anzac Memorial to draw attention to their own political or sectional views. As well, they are people who, for personal reasons, elect to destroy public property for no better reason than the achievement of notoriety and to cause as much pain as possible in the process. Unfortunately, the Government’s action with the passage of this bill will be purely reactionary because the criminal act must already have been performed before the proposed legislation comes into operation.

This bill contains no preventive provisions. I noticed discussion that took place in another place about glass walls being erected around the memorial at night to stop graffiti. If that suggestion is accepted, all it will do in my view, based on my experience in dealing with many people who elect to conduct themselves in a particular way, is increase the degree of difficulty in performing the task. It will create a challenge for those who wish to participate in graffiti to again seek status from their peers to surmount the barriers and damage the memorial.

I agree fully with the recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition in another place that in addition to an increased penalty, some effective and respectful preventive measures should be devised. The suggestion made by my leader in the other place was to put a permanent guard on duty during hours of darkness. I believe a guard would serve a number of very important purposes and would be worthwhile for the memorial. The guards would serve to protect the memorial and also indicate to the wider community that remembering those who gave their lives during the wars is not simply a matter of building a place of remembrance: It also requires a significant monument to be put in place to show that we will stand guard over those who gave their lives while standing guard over us.

Beyond the direct impact that a guard would have on providing protection for the Anzac Memorial, a guard would also establish a safe zone surrounding the memorial at night. I do not know how many members of this House have taken the opportunity to observe the memorial at night, when it has a most significant emotional impact. The memorial is set against the backdrop of a pool, with the park and darkness behind it and the forecourt lights shining onto it. It is far more compelling at night than it is during the day. The reality is, however, that most Sydneysiders and most tourists would stay away from that area at night.

Approximately two years ago a senior commissioned police officer was very seriously bashed a short distance from the memorial after leaving police headquarters. He had to travel only a short distance to public transport before heading for home. The uniformed commissioned officer was walking across town. If a police officer cannot protect himself, how can honourable members send a message to the community that we are serious about protecting the Anzac Memorial by simply increasing the penalty for damaging it from $200 to $2,200?

A guard would serve as a very important living symbol of the role performed by people who lost their lives guarding this country while defending Australia’s sovereignty overseas and protecting the lives of others. It would send a very clear message to offenders and to the community that members of this Parliament are very serious about maintaining the memorial in a symbolic and physical sense. That level of protection would also provide an opportunity for tourists and the people of Australia to visit the memorial at night instead of taking their sandwiches and feeding the pigeons at lunch time before returning to their workplaces.

The Opposition supports the Government’s move to ensure that those who desecrate the memorial should pay for the pain and suffering that they have caused others. Following the disgraceful attacked that occurred in February, the Government has finally focused its attention on this issue. I call upon the Minister to put in place a lasting method of protection that addresses the issues I have raised. If the Government is serious about preventing these crimes it should take a long hard look at the way in which Australian history is being presented in school curricula. I am sure that the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn will describe the way in which the New South Wales curriculum readily identifies with past deeds of other nations which are seen to be the great protectors of the world, whereas the Australian soldier is ignored. Honourable members are in for a bit of a history lesson.

I call upon all honourable members to listen attentively to the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn and the Hon. B. P. V. Pezzutti when they make their contributions to this debate. In conclusion, let me state that the Opposition supports the bill. I reiterate that I look forward to the contributions of members of the Opposition and to the Minister’s reply. I hope that
Page 1171
he will have something positive to say about providing a permanent guard for the memorial to engender respect and ensure that the people of Sydney feel safe visiting the memorial at any hour of the day, not only Monday to Friday between 8.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.50 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Anzac Memorial (Building) Amendment Bill. The objects of the bill are to amend the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act 1923 and the Anzac Memorial (Building) By-laws 1937 to increase the penalties for offences under those by-laws and to enable a Local Court to order a person who has been convicted of an offence under those by-laws to pay the cost of, or a contribution to the cost of, the repair or restoration of damage caused by the commission of the offence. I am concerned about how to educate youths on the sacred nature of not only the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park but other memorials throughout the State that have also been damaged by graffiti.

The Parliamentary Library has informed me that memorials have been damaged at Corrimal in the Illawarra area and at Waverley - almost as if a concerted attack has been waged on war memorials across the State. That is a matter of great regret and the Government must take action. The Premier, who is also the Minister for Citizenship, has responsibility for the Anzac Memorial and Anzac Bridge. The Premier has focused on the importance of our history and society and I encourage him to continue in a positive direction in conjunction with the Federal Government to protect war memorials. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is dangerous to walk through Hyde Park at night; indeed, the police have advised people not to do that. Therefore the Anzac Memorial, which is in Hyde Park, is vulnerable to attack.

Young people should be made aware of the importance of war memorials. I urge the Premier to discuss with the Federal Government the possibility of introducing a ceremonial guard on the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park; to involve the Australian defence forces as a guard of honour. That would impress upon everyone, including our youth, the importance of this sacred site and the fact that it ought be treated with respect.

I have visited the United States of America’s Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbour, which has a ceremonial guard, and other memorials in France, Poland, Russia, and China which have service guards. In Sydney the Army, Navy and Air Force could provide a ceremonial guard on a daily rotation basis. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that security police would be required at night, and that could be supplied by the Police Service or private security guards.

I encourage the Government to consider putting tour guides at the memorial. Ex-servicemen wearing their medals could attend the memorial as tour guides and explain its significance and tell about their own service in defending Australia. Schoolchildren who visit Parliament House, especially those who come down from the country, could also visit the Anzac Memorial. The interesting instruction they would be given by former servicemen would implant in the schoolchildren a proper respect for the memorial.

Some years ago the defence forces conducted a ceremonial parade and guard in Martin Place every Thursday afternoon. Perhaps it was stopped because of renovations being carried out there. If it were recommenced, that ceremonial activity could be held in conjunction with a ceremony in Hyde Park, perhaps with a military band, on either a Thursday afternoon or Sunday. This would help to emphasise the importance of the Anzac Memorial and the Cenotaph. I am pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.55 p.m.]: I represent the Leader of the Opposition on the Anzac Memorial Trust, which meets regularly. The co-operation that the trustees have received from the Premier and the Department of Public Works in the important matter of protecting the memorial, its refurbishment and proper maintenance has been extraordinary.

The Premier has shown a personal interest in the memorial, as demonstrated by his extremely good second reading speech. Of course, he usually gets a bit carried away, gets a bit arrogant, and says a few wrong things, but his speech clearly demonstrates his knowledge of history and his deep commitment to protecting, refurbishing and promoting this memorial. This matter has been raised tonight because graffiti removal is a continuing problem. The annual report of the trustees of the Anzac Memorial Building for the year ended 31 December 1998 was tabled in this Parliament. The annual report states:

Following the defacing of the Memorial by extensive graffiti and the removal of this graffiti, there was concern over the patchy appearance of the exterior of the building.

As I say, maintenance and protection of the memorial is an ongoing problem. The provision of security gates that do not restrict access is another problem to be resolved. The trustees were presented
Page 1172
with a number of options, which they widely discussed. The option they chose was a vertical lift screen; not a cheap option. It has been designed by an architect and the Public Works Department, and they have done an outstanding job in arriving at a solution that is sympathetic with the need to protect the memorial while not detracting from it. The Premier has allocated $1 million in this year’s budget for that work to proceed. Tenders have been let and the tendering process finalised. The money is there for the trustees to spend.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will be pleased to know that the Premier has made $133,000 available for night-time security guards from 1 July this year, and that $105,000 was allocated to the trustees for other refurbishment work to make the downstairs section useable. The annual report tells us what happened when the security guard and dog were engaged:

Concern about increasing instances of anti-social behaviour within the Memorial precincts, particularly during the hours of darkness, caused the Trustees to ask the Government for assistance. Gates are to be installed to restrict out-of-hours access to the podium levels and the project has now been given high priority.

Since that annual report was written those initiatives have been funded. The report goes on:

A security company has been appointed by the Trustees to secure the Memorial precinct.

The manager has reported that as a result of these guard and dog patrols, between 16 March and 17 April there was a 75 per cent reduction in attacks on the war memorial. During that period guards removed more than 1,000 people from the memorial. So, 1,000 people were inappropriately traipsing through the memorial at night. To underscore the importance of the memorial, some 5,000 people visited the memorial on Anzac Day. There is a need for guards because the problem is antisocial behaviour. It is not just graffiti; people sleep and defecate in the memorial, and more recently there was a boy from Coogee who did not know his way around the city and relieved himself on the war memorial.

I raise some matters for the Minister to take into account. This legislation may need to be extended to cover other important war memorials. The Jesse Street Memorial Park in Loftus Street is the site of an ex-service women’s war memorial. During demonstrations by groups opposed to the mining of Kakadu that park was trashed, fires were lit on the surrounds, and the statue was damaged.

I remember the Hon. Beryl Evans being terribly concerned about it. She took the Lord Mayor and a representative of the Premier’s Department to the park. They kicked everybody out of the park because they had damaged it. The park and the statue were restored and, since then, each time groups have begun to demonstrate in or near that park it has been roped off. The park and the memorial are looking extraordinarily good and they are a fitting memorial to the women who served us in all wars.

I raise that issue because it is clear from the debate in the other House that war memorials right across the State are regularly damaged. This legislation should apply to all war memorials. I urge the Minister to take that matter back to the Premier and I think he would give it a fairly decent hearing as he is interested in our history. He has always accepted the need for proper recognition and thanks to those who served their country, whether in war or in peace time.

I recently opened the refurbished memorial baths in Lismore, which are a copy of the Menen Gate. They were refurbished and rededicated with a grant from the State and Commonwealth governments and some money from the local council. It is a fitting war memorial but it has already been vandalised with graffiti, and the money to fix it must come from local government.

A fund should be established to assist with the maintenance of memorials. Perhaps local government should set aside its own money for that. The penalties for defacing memorials should be the same, whether it is the war memorial in Hyde Park in Sydney or other memorials throughout New South Wales. I entirely approve of the bill and I think all members of this House and the other place approve of it also. I hope the President takes a particular interest in this bill and adds her voice to its support.

The Hon. H. S. TSANG [6.05 p.m.]: I support the Government’s legislation. It will increase the penalties for vandalism of the Anzac Memorial building in Hyde Park. This bill brings the penalty for vandalising this historic house into line with the penalties under the Summary Offences Act. Currently, the maximum penalty under the by-law for desecrating this building is only £20, while the penalty under the Summary Offences Act for spray paint damage is 20 penalty points, or $2,200.

Clearly, with inflation this anomaly has increased significantly since the 1923 Act and now the penalty simply does not deter desecration of this
Page 1173
national shrine. Moreover, the Summary Offences Act contains a provision enabling the courts to order a person convicted of criminal damage to contribute towards the cost of repairing the damage. I support this. In doing so, I support the preservation of our Anzac tradition and endorse community concern regarding the recent vandalism of this most precious site.

Only two days ago in the Local Court there was an example of the type of offence this legislation is intended to crack down on. The magistrate imposed the highest possible penalty at his disposal under the Anzac Memorial by-law, only $40, on a young man who urinated on Sydney’s most sacred monument. This is absurd because, under the Summary Offences Act, if the same person had urinated into the adjacent reflection pool, he would have faced a penalty of three months gaol or a fine of $600. We must not allow this situation to continue. Parliament must take a stand.

Standing up for the Anzac tradition and for those who have made sacrifices for the country is not a first for me. I have given my time to lead marches on issues I felt passionate about. I led a march against racism when Pauline Hanson and One Nation tried to threaten our national standing and unleashed a tidal wave of racism across the nation.

As you have, Madam President, some 10 years ago I led a march against the massacre of innocent students fighting for democracy. I am proud of my long and enduring relationship with the Returned Services League of Australia, and each Anzac Day I am proud to march with the State President of the RSL, Mr Rusty Priest, the state executive and those who laid their lives on the line to preserve our way of life.

Nothing is more precious to our society than these people and their sacrifices, and nothing is more abhorrent to any society than the desecration of buildings designed to honour their contribution. So, when I, like many others, read about the recent graffiti attack I was shocked and saddened. I support this legislation because I want these people to know that we still care, we still remember and we still honour. We will not stand by and allow the memorial to their contribution to be denigrated or vandalised.

This bill will bring the penalties for those who desecrate the shrine into line with those in the Summary Offences legislation, which operates in all other areas. In this sense, the legislation corrects an anomaly. Offenders should not receive stiffer fines for vandalising public property of no real community significance than they do for vandalising this most sacred historic building. This anomaly is clearly out of line with community sentiment. It is a slap in the face for those who have served their country. It is clearly out of line with the growing trend for Australians, particularly young Australians, to get involved and to take pride in their past.

As we move towards a republic I sense a resurgence of interest in the Anzac tradition. For me the Anzac tradition symbolises so much of what an Australian republic is about. It is about standing up for one’s beliefs and one’s commitment to Australia. It is about standing as friends with, and yet independent of, mother England with a mature and distinct national identity. It is also about having courage. It is because of the sacrifice made by these men and women for the sake of their country that we live today in a free, open and tolerant society. We have much to be proud of, and much to be thankful for.

I can only speak from anecdotal evidence, but I strongly believe that as we move towards a republic there will be increasing interest in preserving our Anzac traditions. That is why these changes have received so much support from the general community. I believe the changes will strengthen the bond between the general community and those who fought for our way of life. As an honorary life member of the RSL and a board member of the Anzac Trust, I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. M. I. JONES [6.11 p.m.]: I speak in favour of the Anzac Memorial (Building) Amendment Bill. Recently, mindless acts of desecration have made such legislation necessary. Yet it is sad that as a community we need to legislate for the protection of a site that represents such a strong, vital part of our culture and society. As an adopted citizen of this country I, like many other new Australians, have embraced this country’s heritage and traditions.

Although the Anzac tradition was born on distant shores on 25 April 1915, ever since that time its measure has been shaped by the sacrifice and commitment made by the men and women of Australia’s defence forces. Even today in East Timor the inheritors of this tradition seek to ensure peace and stability within our region. Each one of these men and women embodies the qualities which the historian C. E. W. Bean so carefully described. He said:

But ANZAC stood, and still stands, for reckless valour in a good cause, for enterprise, resourcefulness, fidelity, comradeship, and endurance that will never own defeat.

Page 1174

The Anzac Memorial is a symbol of our collective heritage, which we share as Australians - just as our commemoration of that day is also a symbol of our national identity. Its purpose is to commemorate Australians who gave the ultimate sacrifice: their life for their country. As a community we must respect and admire the sacrifice and qualities that our defence forces embody. Defacement of our Anzac Memorial is an injury to their honour and service, which they gave selflessly.

The function of memorials is not as a monument for war glories, but, rather, a focus for remembrance. They form a crucial function in the healing process associated with the loss of loved ones and comrades in war. From a personal perspective, I recall as a child standing by my father at the Royal Navy’s memorial at Portsmouth whilst he traced the names of mates who had not returned. I have similarly witnessed the grief of Vietnam veterans at the Memorial Wall in Washington DC. The defacement or desecration of these monuments is a crime - a crime of ignorance and cruelty which is inflicted on those who are left to grieve.

This memorial also has a place in the history and consciousness of our city. The Anzac Memorial is what the people of Sydney, and particularly the generation that was most affected by the First World War wanted: a symbol that represented their memories and grief. The building itself took many years from its inception to become a reality. In 1929 the Parliament agreed to construct the memorial at its present location at the southern end of Hyde Park. A competition was commissioned throughout Australia and the British Empire to design a suitable commemorative model that would reflect both the aspirations of Sydney’s citizens and their desire to remember those who had fallen in the First World War.

In July 1930 the design of a young Sydney architect, C. Bruce Dellit, was chosen over 100 other entries. The design was very different to the classic-style memorials that were built throughout Australia at that time. His design was uniquely modernist, embracing the new architectural form of that period, art deco. It represented the feeling that Sydney’s memorial would be as much about looking towards the future as remembering the past. The architect Dellit commented that he had sought to create a memorial that would seek "to outlast any drab depression which might arise out of personal grief for the fallen".

The sculpture of "Sacrifice" by Raynor Hoff reflected the artist’s personal experience of war and his desire not to romanticise or glorify the experience shared by all veterans. Professor Ken Inglis in his text "Sacred Places" describes the sculpture as portraying "not glory but passivity". Above the sculpture the ceiling of the memorial’s dome is inscribed with 120,000 gold stars, each representing a volunteer from New South Wales. Commentators such as the English Art-Historian have described both the memorial and the sculpture of "Sacrifice" as achieving a remarkable dignity of expression, while Denis Jeans describes the "remarkable unity of architecture, carving and sculpture". In supporting this bill I am reminded of the words of the Australian writer A. B. Facey, who wrote:

It was the nineteenth day of August 1915. I had been on Gallipoli only six days short of four months and I want to say now that they were the worst four months of my whole life. I had seen many men die horribly, and had killed many myself, and lived in fear most of the time. And it is terrible to think that it was all for nothing.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [6.17 p.m.]: The Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park was completed in 1934. War memorials are probably more significant to Australians than to many other nations because of our historical involvement in theatres of war. The graves of our dead are located in foreign lands, and these are symbolised by the erection of war memorials. The word "cenotaph", meaning "empty tomb", was often used to describe these memorials. Our war memorials stand in place of our distant graves, and Anzac Day ceremonies around them each year provide a surrogate funeral. They our sacred sites.

These memorials have been treated with great reverence since they were erected because of the powerful symbolism that they evoke. I recall the first instance of desecration of our Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park. It was Anzac Day in 1981 when a mob left-wing feminists from the hairy-armpit brigade gathered under the label "Women Against Rape" and mocked our old veterans by jumping into the Pool of Remembrance and carrying on with other publicity-seeking shenanigans.

Last year we were outraged to see that a graffiti vandal had carried out an attack on the memorial, and yesterday we learned that a young bloke had been caught urinating against it. The Government’s response has been to introduce legislation to protect the memorial against such attacks.

In his second reading speech in another place the Premier advised that it is appropriate to protect the Anzac Memorial because of "the importance of the memorial in our history, in our understanding of
Page 1175
the Australian experience and the Australian character". So what is this "character" he wants us to understand? I refer to historian Lloyd Robson for a description of the typical Australian Anzac soldier as he saw it. Lloyd Robson wrote:

These men reflected the egalitarian colonial origins of Australia and were direct and straightforward in their dealings with each other, and contemptuous of lesser breeds; they could and did fight like threshing machines when they had to . . . They showed up all other soldiers and especially the British to be lacking in initiative and go; they revealed that they were rather undisciplined when that discipline was merely a formality, but really needed no controlling when it came to the deadly business of battle - then they became highly effective, skilful and feared killers, they were a classless army; they stuck to their mates through thick and thin; their burden as soldiers was lightened by a sardonic sense of humour . . . And in their ranks abounded many wags and tough nuts who made it a rule always to outwit the authorities; they did not give a damn for anyone on earth, in heaven or in hell. Their highly distinctive tunics and hats were perhaps never cleaned and brushed as they might have been . . . they had a penchant for removing objects of value left in their way and were expert con men; their contempt for "Gyppos" was notorious; though they at first hated the Turks . . . very soon they developed a respect for Johnny Turk; their attitude to the German soldier was not one of hate but respect . . . The stereotypic Australian soldier was very tall and sinewy and hatchet-faced. He had a great respect for the institutions of the "old country" and what he perceived as its quaintness, but little time for pommy officers and men as a rule, or until they proved themselves manly. He got on well with the Scots. The stereotype was not formally religious but had a lot of time for the Salvation Army and some of the "fighting" padres.

That description is still relevant if a letter to the editor in the Australian the day before yesterday is any guide. Frank Browne of Canungra wrote:

I’ve been watching with amusement while the Indonesians threaten to harm Australian soldiers.

I happen to know that while the Indonesian military looks smart in their uniforms and are real tough with defenceless people, when it comes to a fair dinkum blue they are seriously deficient in ticker. One unarmed Australian girl is worth a hundred of them.

They are trying to scare the people who won the Boer War for the Poms, showed them how to win the First World War (inventing blitzkrieg at the same time) then showed the world how to beat it at Tobruk in the Second World War.

The fact of the matter is, we’ve flogged every race on the planet who has ever fought us.

We’d rather be their mates, but if the Indonesians want a blue, they should start with someone easy, like the Europeans, Russians, Yanks or Poms.

I think that spirit is still evident in the Australian Digger, the Anzac. The Premier stated:

Graffiti attacks on such a place are totally inexplicable. Some people in our society are totally alienated from it, its aspirations and its history.

I believe the Premier is spot on about that. I recall an article published a few years ago in the Australian titled "Youth and the Challenge of Change". It reported:

Nothing prepared us for the depth of the children’s fear of the future, their despair.

The cultural decay of Western societies is evident from an array of social trends - the increase in youth suicide; the high, and perhaps still increasing, incidence of serious drug and alcohol abuse; the sharp rise in crime rates in recent decades; the increasing incidence of mental illness such as depression; the emergence as mass personal obsessions, such as dieting among adolescent girls; the widespread pessimism cynicism, confusion, social alienation and sense of insecurity and powerlessness revealed by surveys.

The article went on to say:

When a culture fails to imbue people’s lives with a sense of worth and meaning then they must attempt to find these qualities as individuals. It is a task that many find extremely difficult, even impossible. People want to know what is expected of them; they need to have something to believe in. This absence of belief is much beyond ourselves, and the subsequent lack of faith in ourselves are undermining our resilience, our capacity to cope with the more personal difficulties and hardships of everyday life.

It may be, then, that the greatest wrong we are doing to our children is not the fractured families or the scarcity of jobs (damaging though these are), but the creation of a culture that gives them nothing beyond themselves to believe in, and no cause for help or optimism.

In a Sun-Herald article of 20 April 1997 the grandchildren of Sir Roden Cutler, VC, were interviewed for their views on Anzac. Tim, then aged 16, advised that at his school, Shore, the head prefect read the Anzac ode, For The Fallen. He said:

The Last Post is played and hymns are sung. There is also a minute’s silence and we have a few prayers. Grandparents are invited and some of them get quite emotional. But I can’t understand why anyone would cry.

None of the three Cutler children had ever been to an Anzac Day ceremony, and on this one Ben was playing golf, Sarah was meeting friends, and Tim was going water-skiing. Premier Carr has claimed:

In a modest way I would like to think that our initiatives in the school system to underline the study of our history - the new compulsory history unit leading up to year 10, examinable at the end of year 10, that new cluster of external exams we have inserted at the end of year 10 - and the protection of World War 1 as the central part of the study of modern history will counter this.

I have to take issue with the Premier on his assertion that the study of World War I "remains the centre of Australia’s modern history studies and is
Page 1176
the most important event in this century". I remind the Premier that World War I was not our war. Australia was not much more than a colonial outpost or a British appendage when it entered the war to make its contribution to empire defence. It was not until the landing at Gallipoli that the Anzac tradition was born. Indeed, some modern historians regard that action as the baptism of Australia as a nation. I agree with the Premier that this should be a compulsory part of our educational curriculum, but it is only the beginning.

Names such as Tobruk, El Alamein and Beersheba have become etched into our national psyche. Our initial involvement in World War II was also due to our links with Great Britain. Once again the leadership and the fighting qualities of our troops were the stuff of legend. But it was not until Japan entered the war on 7 December 1941 that the Australian national spirit was put to the test as Australia faced the very real and immediate threat of invasion. The Japanese army was awesome in every respect. It had advanced unchecked down through Asia and the Pacific. It had defeated the Americans in the Philippines, the British and the Australian forces, many of which were under incompetent British command, in Singapore and Malaya, and the Dutch in the Dutch East Indies.

The Japanese army met a ragtag bunch of Australians in New Guinea. The Australians were outgunned, out-trained and outnumbered, but during July and December 1942 they absorbed everything the superior Japanese force could throw at them in some of the most horrific jungle terrain in the world. They pushed the Australians back to the very doorstep of their objective at Port Moresby, but the Australians rallied and then pushed the Japanese forces back across the Owen Stanley Ranges and into the sea at Buna and Gona. It was a heroic campaign and one that saved Australia from invasion. Sir William Slim of Burma, later to become our Governor-General, remarked that it was the Australians who first broke the spell of invincibility of the Japanese. If Gallipoli was our baptism as a nation, then Kokoda was our confirmation. The terrible tragedy is that nobody, especially young Australians, knows anything about it.

I have said many times that Australians know more about the Alamo than they do about Isurava, yet the odds that the Australians faced at Isurava were greater than the odds that the Texans faced at the Alamo. This ignorance is surely an indictment of our education system. If the Premier is serious about changing Australian attitudes so that they become more respectful of our traditions, he needs to do more than make cosmetic adjustments to our education system. He also needs to seek a commitment from the media and arts community to produce the films on Australian campaigns to create a wider public interest in our history, to produce the documentaries for factual research, and to write the books that tell the stories.

I remember a few years ago the ABC spent a couple of million dollars of taxpayers’ funds to produce a film called Turtle Beach. This film achieved some sort of notoriety because it managed to offend the Malaysians but, as a show, it simply did not rate. The funds should have been directed towards the production of a film on any number of Australian military campaigns. I appreciate that this is more a Federal issue. However, the Premier should seek to work closely with the Federal Government given his commitment to historical studies.

More recently the 2/14 Battalion sought funds from the Federal Department of Veterans’ Affairs to have a book written about the battle of Isurava. Its request was refused because the battle was deemed not to be of national significance by this new breed of bureaucrats. Never mind that the military historian at the Australian National University, Dr David Horner, has referred to it as the battle that saved Australia and never mind that the 2/14 Battalion was the most highly decorated unit in the Australian army during the Second World War.

More recently a freelance documentary team under the leadership of Patrick Lindsay produced a moving documentary on the return of a group of veterans to the Isurava battle site. This documentary was their own initiative and was produced at their own expense but it was rejected by the ABC as an Anzac Day special because, according to Mr Geoff Barnes, the commissioning editor for ABC documentaries, "It did not fit our scheduling requirements", so it was screened nationally on Channel 10.

Yet Mr Barnes found that it was appropriate to screen a documentary on General Douglas MacArthur of the United States Army around the same time, a general who denigrated the Australian troops in New Guinea so that he could promote his own personal ambitions. Mr Barnes should feel ashamed of his decision but if he is a product of the post-Vietnam education system, his ignorance can be excused simply because he would not have learned of the significance of this battle during his formative years.

Page 1177

The Leader of the Opposition in the other place spoke of her deep commitment to the Kokoda campaign as a result of her experience in trekking across the Owen Stanley Ranges and visiting battle sites along the track in 1997. She also spoke of her involvement in accompanying a group of 46 Kokoda veterans on their return to the battle site at Isurava for the last parade. Another person who accompanied this group was the son of a Kokoda veteran, Peter Dorman. This experience enabled Peter to understand his father much better. In his book The Silent Men he wrote:

For myself, "The Silent Men" (who fought in the Kokoda campaign) are silent no more. I understand now the reason for their perceived silence, for their reluctance to talk of the indescribable slaughter they have experienced and the acts of nihilistic savagery they have witnessed. I understand how their comradeship and strong commitments to each other - an inbuilt support system that renders full credence and authority to the treasured Australian icon of mateship. Through these men, I have also come to know my father. I have come to appreciate the silent burden that war placed on his and their shoulders. In the process, I have also come to know myself intimately as I place myself beside him, scrambling and fighting over the stony hills of Lebanon, then stumbling through the mud and jungle of the Owen Stanleys. I lie beside him in the putrid, stinking trenches and beaches of Gona, warding off disease as much as the enemy. Deep wells of grief and love flood me as I put my arms around him, as I would my children, and attempt to shield him from the surrounding horrors, then assist him to stagger out of the holocaust.

Peter Dorman went on to write:

As the men bid farewell to the brothers and mates who didn’t come home, I feel a stronger bonding with them after years of pain, examination and conciliation. I pray this Last Parade can release these Silent Men. I will not forget their sacrifice.

The Leader of the Opposition said, "Nor should we." She went on to say that all members of Parliament should be committed to making sure that the generation that follows us, the one that follows it, and the one that follows it, understand the commitment of the people who fought in campaigns such as Kokoda. This can only be achieved with a genuine plan to introduce a study of our military history into our school curriculum as a compulsory subject. I also note that the Government’s solution to the graffiti attacks on the Anzac War Memorial at Hyde Park is to install a wall, which will be raised to protect the memorial at night. That does not seem to me to be an imaginative solution. I am sure that the architects will provide a design solution, the builders will do a good job, and that it will be an expensive project. It would be worthwhile if it was the only solution to the problem, but it is not.

The Leader of the Opposition proposed an imaginative solution which I believe has a great deal of merit and should be seriously considered by the Government. She has suggested that an Anzac memorial guard, similar to the highly successful shrine guard in Melbourne, be employed for ceremonial and protective duties. The shrine guard in Melbourne was introduced in 1935, has a strength of 10 guards and operates on an annual budget of around $1.2 million a year. From 7.00 a.m. until sunset in winter, shrine guard officers dress in traditional Army light horse uniform and carry .303 rifles. In summer daylight hours they wear a more contemporary uniform, complete with plume hat. At night they wear police uniforms and are fully kitted with a baton, a pistol, spray and a police radio.

We understand that the Government is already proposing to have some guards at the memorial. However, we are proposing that the Anzac memorial guards will patrol the memorial and its surrounds 24 hours a day and fulfil ceremonial as well as protective functions. The ceremonial presence of uniformed guards would be an added tourist feature for Sydney. Members of the memorial guard could be special constables with former police and military service experience. Input on the project would have to be sought from the Trust, which currently manages the memorial, from the Returned Services League and the New South Wales police.

The Opposition suggests that the Government consider the proposal as a serious option to provide better protection for the Anzac memorial. I note that the Government supported the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition but the argument in support of its response was a little incoherent and, if anything, supported the call by the Leader of the Opposition for studies on Australian campaigns in World War II to be included in our education curriculum.

Mr Ian McManus, a Parliamentary Secretary in the other place, said that he would urge the Premier to write to John Howard immediately to request the provision of a military guard as provided for at Victoria Barracks. The problem is that the Government should be aware that the military guard at Victoria Barracks was contracted out to private security firms about five years ago. I thought that Mr McManus’s suggestion that we show movie shorts in picture theatres to remind our youth of our involvement in military conflicts was a step back into the 1950s and it indicates to me that the Government has not really thought the issue through. It seems as though the issue was flicked to the Government Architect to design a physical barrier to solve the problem.

I hope that the Government will now see that there is a more imaginative solution, which will not
Page 1178
only provide the necessary security for the Anzac War Memorial but will give us an added tourist attraction which honours the sacrifices that have been made by Australian service men and women in defence of the peace and prosperity that we enjoy in this country and this State today. I am not really concerned with the punitive measures contained in the bill. A fair dinkum commitment to the study of Australian military history as part of our education curriculum and a strategic plan to encourage the production of films, documentaries and books will nurture a positive community attitude of respect towards such symbolic structures as our Cenotaph and our Anzac War Memorial. I urge the Premier to take these ideas and suggestions into account.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.35 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support the Anzac Memorial (Building) Amendment Bill and the Anzac tradition. I was pleased to hear the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn refer to the Anzac legend and to some of the exploits of the Anzacs. My grandfather fought at the battle of Passchendaele - I think it is officially known as the third battle of Ypres - and he was one of three who survived of a company of 120. My father was in university at the time of the Second World War and he did not go overseas. The Australian Democrats are supportive of both the Anzac legend and the shrines which embody it and form part of our ceremonial remembrances and our history.

At a practical level, however, this bill is more about increasing the penalties to be imposed on anyone damaging the memorial, assisting in preventing damage to the memorial, or addressing the motivation of those who seek to damage it. Are we to demand compensation from those who damage the memorial? Who is to pay that compensation? Do these demoralised children who try to gain the respect of their peers by defacing things have the assets to make a significant contribution?

If children from disturbed families are involved in acts of graffiti would it really be helpful to demand that their parents - perhaps struggling single parents - make restitution, thus pushing the parents deeper into a worsening environment from which the children might have been trying to escape? The objective of this bill - which is to protect an Australian shrine - does not necessarily translate into a civilised and sensible way of punishing those who have defiled such a shrine.

We must maintain Australian traditions and remember that the Anzacs and our armies fought to achieve a much better world. The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the young psyche. He seems to understand the reason why children are indulging in graffiti. They want to achieve respect for their derring-do or daring, which in another context would be applauded as bravery, but in this context is condemned as mindless vandalism. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn referred earlier to the fact that these children need to be able to believe in a system and a society. Those sorts of values are an extremely important touchstone for everyone in our community.

The bill removes the anomaly of the penalty for damaging a shrine being less than for other property damage, but apart from that I am not sure it advances the cause of remembrance. The Diggers who fought in the battles were high-spirited youths with positive values. I remember hearing anecdotal stories of young fellows from across the State waving goodbye to their loved ones as they left to enlist for the First World War, pinching toilet paper and hanging it out of the train windows to flap in the breeze. It was all in good fun. Perhaps we should think about the type of Australia we want rather than punishing those who would damage our icons.

Naturally the Democrats support the Anzac spirit and other important values in our society. However, we are facing a crisis in which the weak are being ground down, to some extent by world forces. That is occurring because our commitment to equity in the provision of a decent life for all Australians has not been maintained. We must address that problem and not simply look at jingoism or protecting our icons as ends in themselves.

The Democrats support the amendment proposed by the Hon. A. G. Corbett which seeks restitution from those who have damaged or defaced a monument. We support suggestions to prevent further damage to that monument, and ways to increase pride in our history and the furthering of the Anzac legend.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.42 p.m.]: There are very many sacred sites in Australia, and the Anzac Memorial is one of them. Hence the need for this legislation. I can understand people getting upset when the memorial is defaced. I share their concerns. On radio a couple of mornings ago one Digger phoned up and said, "But the person only got fined $40 for urinating on it." I said, "I will fix that." And the legislation does that. Any person urinating on the memorial will receive 10 penalty points. I support the bill. I am pleased that the Government has moved quickly to ensure that
Page 1179
people who deface or abuse this monument in any way will be treated appropriately.

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.43 p.m.]: I support the spirit of the bill. However, I have grave concerns about achieving the purpose of the bill and doing it in a way that is of benefit to the community overall. I respect the memorial and appreciate how much it means to so many people in this country. However, imposing heavier penalties is the wrong way to approach the problem. A previous speaker said that erecting glass walls around the memorial would increase the challenge. We are dealing, particularly in the case of graffitists, with young people who like a challenge and who oppose all forms of authority - and this memorial represents one form of that authority. Rather than trying to penalise these people or create barriers that will not work, guards could patrol the area as a preventative measure. That would be preferable to just increasing the penalties, because the young people who commit these acts do not respect these icons.

Many people regard the work of street graffitists as vandalism, and certainly it creates considerable problems within the community. However, many graffitists are just a step away from being constructive artists. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn may well laugh, even though I had the courtesy to listen quietly to what he said about this important issue. I have just as much respect for and interest in protecting these buildings but the legislation goes the wrong way about it. Some local councils give their local graffitists walls and public spaces on which to do their artwork. Some graffitists have started companies and become successful. They have grown out of the phase. There is a reason why they are doing it. We should try to solve the problem rather than just being reactive.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: What if they did it to Ayers Rock?

The Hon. I. COHEN: I would say the same thing: look at why they have done it, and work out ways to prevent it. I feel very strongly about the many icons, albeit natural environments, that I see being desecrated. It is the same principle and I respect that principle. All I am saying is that graffitists, when caught, should undertake community work. Otherwise they will be caught up in the justice system and will face relatively heavy fines, which will be counterproductive in the long run and exacerbate their feelings of rebellion. Of course, such measures would not protect war memorials and the like. Prevention is clearly the name of the game.

One speaker mentioned $133,000 being put aside for night security guards. Certainly a guard with a dog would be an effective preventative measure. As a Green I am not against implementing preventative measures but it should be done in an appropriate and effective way. I support the amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. A. G. Corbett because we must get this right. The memorial should be given the respect it deserves because of the special place it has in the hearts of many people in this country. However, the legislation would better serve those who wish to protect the memorial if it were pro-active rather than enabling punitive attacks on those in our community who are at times rebellious.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [6.48 p.m.]: I did not intend to speak in this debate but I shall do so because I am concerned at some of the propositions put forward about the bill. I support the bill. The Hon. I. Cohen said that prevention is the name of the game. In this case I do not think it is. I think protection is the name of the game. It will take a long time to change the culture that believes graffiti and vandalism are somehow acceptable in the name of boredom and rejection of society. Until we can go down the path and create effective prevention, we have to have protection. This bill is about protecting one of the most sacred institutions in this country, sacred not in a religious sense but in a historic sense. It has made us the nation we are today.

The possibility that children are bored, reject society or are rebels provides no justification for acts committed on the Anzac Memorial or on the War Memorial in Canberra. Some children behave in an appalling manner and have to be asked not to skip, run, chew gum or wear their hats in the shrine of remembrance. These kids do not understand. We have lost the plot. In 1964 and 1965 I had the privilege of co-producing a series on ABC television called The First Anzacs. That was a two-year intensive education program for me looking into the history of the Anzacs and viewing films. I came away with a feeling of amazement at what these young men and women accomplished.

The important thing is that the kids who are now being accused of doing this damage are the same age as those who went to war, fought at Gallipoli and became the first Anzacs. There were endless instances of kids who were 14 years of age putting up their age so they could enlist. A relative of mine aged 14 years enlisted in the Light Horse Brigade and was in the charge at Beersheba, one of the most incredible events of World War I.

Page 1180

The difference is that those kids had respect for institutions. They did not have the diversions that kids of today have: television, radio and fun things. The kids who went to war had to make their own entertainment and occupy themselves. Then they went away and fought a war. I intended to support the amendment of the Hon. A. G. Corbett, but having listened to the debate I now believe the amendment will create two classes of vandal: the vandal who would pay the full fine and the vandal who would be expected to repair the damage done to the Anzac Memorial, whether or not he has the skill to do it.

The memorial is a special place. It has sandstone blocks as part of its structure and is not easy to repair. I do not believe the amendment is the answer. The Hon. I. Cohen said that the imposition of heavier penalties is not the way to go. I remind honourable members that the first Anzacs paid the supreme penalty. Those soldiers were no older than the kids of today that we are speaking about. Trampling our monument to the Anzacs is a social condemnation of the way today’s kids react to these monuments and of the fact that we never taught them exactly where their history lies and why they enjoy the society they do. I suppose it is summed up in the words of the World War I poet who said:

Life to be sure is nothing much to give, but young men think it is and we were young.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.51 p.m.]: The Anzac Memorial (Building) Amendment Bill will fail to protect the Anzac Memorial. The Greens oppose this bill precisely because we are committed to working out strategies to provide effective protection.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: That is not what your leader said when he spoke.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, he did. As our position on this issue is too often distorted, I emphasise that the Greens are strongly committed to the protection of the Anzac Memorial, and other war memorials and sites of significance. We are committed also to providing young people with space so they can express themselves. I urge members to consider those two points if the problem is to be solved. The Greens acknowledge the special place the memorial has in the history of this country. It holds great meaning for Australians and so it is appropriate for governments to develop strategies to safeguard it and other memorials.

The bill does not provide strategies; it just takes the old law-and-order approach. Time and again we have learned that that approach does not solve problems; it only fills up our gaols. This proposed legislation is set up to fail. Increasing fines for acts of vandalism on this war memorial will not deter graffiti artists. It will simply make criminals of more people, who, in the main, will be young people. As I have already said, the bill offers no protection to the war memorial. I shall explain why. The rationale behind the bill is that the fines should be increased in line with those in the Summary Offences Act.

Therefore, one who did not know much about Sydney would assume that if the Summary Offences Act was put in place our problems will be solved: there would be no graffiti on the war memorial! When members walk or catch taxis home tonight they will see graffiti somewhere. I doubt that anyone will go anywhere in Sydney without seeing graffiti. Clearly, the Summary Offences Act is not working to stop graffiti across this city. Similarly, it will not work to protect the Anzac Memorial.

[Interruption]

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn stopped interjecting when the Hon. I. Cohen spoke, and I congratulate him on doing that. But he ripped into me last night. A number of members apologised to me for the behaviour of others towards me last night. One actually said it was sexist behaviour. This place is like a dormitory at a boys boarding school! I replied to those interjections, but all that is happening here is that double standards are being applied in the way some members treat others.

The Summary Offences Act is not stopping graffiti in this city. If people care about the war memorial, and I believe everyone in this place does, we should work together to produce some strategies to overcome the problem. The bill is the result of flawed logic. I understand that it is difficult for some members in this place to accept that graffiti is art, but it is the artistic expression of many young people. If we continue to deny that, we will continue to see graffiti on the war memorials of this country. All people, wherever their artistic pleasures lie, have a right to express and enjoy their art. Clearly, graffiti and tags are legitimate forms of art; they are not vandalism.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: We are just levelling the penalties with those that apply elsewhere.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Exactly, but it is not working. Members should pause and think: it is not working. We need to ensure that this art form is displayed in appropriate places, not in places of
Page 1181
significance. Graffiti on our buildings, transport vehicles and monuments distresses many people, and it is time the Government came up with a real strategy. If this bill is passed the Anzac Memorial will not be protected; we will only have more legislation that makes criminals of young people.

Because the Greens position is so often distorted I emphasise that we understand that graffiti artists should not display their skills on buildings and other places. As a society we need to provide spaces for graffiti artists to display their skills. We should all work on that strategy to ensure the protection of these sites. The only way to safeguard the war memorial is to provide walls in specific places for taggers and graffiti artists to use, such as Hyde Park, Darling Harbour, Redfern and other suburbs. We have our art galleries and members have their clubs and other places to go to. These days young people have so few places to go to that it is not too much to ask that they also have somewhere to express themselves.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: That is true.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I thank the Minister for his interjection. To confine graffiti to appropriate places we need strategies that accommodate graffiti artists and encourage diversion. The Greens believe that the memorial is tremendously important to the people of New South Wales. The Government should introduce legislation that incorporates real strategies to confine graffiti to appropriate places. The bill is a poor attempt to respond to a real community concern. Increasing the level of financial penalty will not and does not stop graffiti. We welcome the amendment of the Hon. A. G. Corbett, as it provides a solution. We have all been talking about the Anzacs and the Anzac Memorial. The Anzacs fought for Australia. Australia’s future is its young people. Let us do the right thing by them.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [6.58 p.m.]: I support the Anzac Memorial (Building) Amendment Bill, which aims to protect the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park by prescribing higher penalties for desecration of the site and the memorial. The bill brings the Anzac Memorial Act into line with the Summary Offences Act, which prescribes 20 penalty units, which is currently $2,200, for vandalism offences. It is unfortunate that the memorial has been subjected to a number of graffiti and other attacks in the past.

As the principal war memorial in New South Wales the Anzac Memorial stands as a proud reminder of our past and as a symbol of our nation. Australia’s war history has an important place in its national image. The Anzac spirit has assumed a pivotal place in our national character. It illustrates the friendship, courage and teamwork characteristics that make our Australian spirit. It is important that in our national history we treasure our memorials, as well as their meaning. The bill is an important message in citizenship as promoted by the new citizenship portfolio. The proposed legislation is an encouragement of citizenship and an affirmation of our democratic rights and responsibilities.

Recently the Premier has become very keen on promoting citizenship. Although I dispute the merit of a number of decisions he has made in his role as Minister for Citizenship, I fully support this bill as a statement on Australian citizenship. The message the bill sends to the community is that we must protect the values of freedom and friendship, as well as our heritage. The legislation also sends out the message that vandalism and disrespect must not be tolerated in any way in our society. Recent desecration of the Anzac Memorial was met with much dismay and outrage within the community. The response was so strong because it was a desecration of a very important national symbol, rather than other buildings and walls that are painted with graffiti on a daily basis.

It is very important that we acknowledge these problems in the community and that we work together with young people to create preventive solutions rather than punitive ones. Education is a crucial preventive measure against disrespect. I am pleased that the Government is addressing the issue by making the study of World War I a compulsory subject on the secondary school syllabus. History does not teach us only of the nation building process of our own country; it is also about other cultures and other countries. It teaches us to recognise and respect differences, to acknowledge the positive and the negative from our past, and to develop ways to build on the positive and redress the negative.

That is a very important educative step by the Government, and I believe it will enhance the sense of national community and will promote the principles of multiculturalism. I believe the history of a country needs to be balanced. As much as we uphold the spirit of Anzacs at war, we also remember those who fought for peace. The bill is for all those who have lost their lives, such as our missionaries who died for the underprivileged and persecuted overseas and, indeed, our peacekeeping troops in East Timor. That gives a complete picture of Australia and its people. On that basis I give my full support to the bill.

Page 1182

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [7.01 p.m.]: One cannot participate in this sort of debate without acknowledging the enormous sacrifice made by those for whom the war memorial stands. If it were not for their sacrifice we would not be here, exercising our rights to speak freely. Had it not been for their sacrifice the penalties faced by those who desecrate war memorials may have been more severe and other than financial. Other countries, some of which we have fought against, take a much more severe view than Australians of this sort of crime. One claim that has been made in the debate that cannot be left uncontradicted is that recent vandalism of the war memorial is art. In no way can it be described as such.

There is a difference between art and what happened to the war memorial. What occurred recently at the war memorial was not art but an act of violence. It was an act of people trying to express in the most revolting way possible their total disdain and scorn for what the war memorial represents. I believe they intended to hurt the feelings of those who hold it precious. In no way could that sort of activity be called art. It would be entirely different if those who desecrated the war memorial had drawn their own picture of a war memorial and scribbled slogans all over it.

I accept that graffiti is a form of art. I accept that some people who commit paint graffiti are attempting to be artists. But let us are not kid ourselves. What occurred recently at the war memorial had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with art; it was an act of violence. My next comment in no way belittles the crime of domestic violence, but to suggest that what occurred at the war memorial was art is like trying to portray domestic violence in the home as sport.

One can define and redefine something to the point where it has no meaning. What was done at the war memorial was intended to be offensive. It was an act that showed no concern for the feelings people have for the war memorial. It was an act of violence, and it was a crime. People are not criminalised by the criminal justice system; they are criminalised because they commit a criminal offence. I would be one of the first in this House to stand up for merciful treatment for young people who misunderstand what they are doing. I think it was my colleague the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn who commented that some of the students at Shore do not understand what the war memorial represents. It may well be that whoever vandalised the war memorial did so because they did not know how insensitive their actions were.

If that is the case it is very sad. It is an understandable human dynamic that, over time, some of the meaning of Anzac has somehow or other been lost, but I hope we might restore that meaning. The Anzac commemoration has values that will apply to the community for time immemorial. I accept that young people may misunderstand its relevance. I can even accept that the amendment to be moved by the Hon. A. G. Corbett has the good intention of ensuring that a bad act does not become worse. In many respects the amendment simply restates the law. Under the current law it is possible for children who damage public property to be ordered by a court to restore the damage. Community service orders still exist for adults. The amendment is not a mile away from the existing law.

If the amendment is an attempt to give some legitimacy to the act that occurred at the war memorial, then it must be opposed utterly. I believe I speak on behalf of many members in this House when I say we must draw that distinction. I accept it is important not only to punish people, but to teach them. If we teach them properly it is not always necessary to punish them. If it were possible for the Diggers, for whom the memorial stands, to observe the debate tonight and express their point of view I am sure the last thing they would want is to have the young people punished. Many of the World War I and World War II Diggers whom I have come to know do not wish to talk about their experiences. It was a private sacrifice and they have private memories. They tend not to become overwrought by people who express any sort of unkind or negative feeling about their actions.

The last thing the Diggers would want is revenge on people who desecrate the war memorial. The war memorial represents important community values. Every member of this House has acknowledged those values. The last thing I can accept is that the desecration of the war memorial was, in any way, an act of art. Another lesson we could draw from the people who fought at Anzac Cove, or in any other war, is the way they accepted orders without question.

I am the last to say that we should not teach people not to do things. But there are some things that should not need to be taught; the message should be obvious straightaway. It is important for young people to understand that. For example, you do not get a second chance if you put your finger in an electric socket. Sometimes young people need a strong message. Our society needs to develop the attitude, if we do not already have it, that some
Page 1183
things simply are not questioned. Knowing that one should not desecrate the war memorial should be beyond question. I support the bill.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [7.08 p.m.]: Like everyone here, I respect the memorial and would not want to see it defaced or damaged in any way. People who spray paint their tags or signatures, or in other ways deface public buildings, are often young, unemployed, marginalised, alienated people from mainstream society, and sometimes they are homeless. This vulnerable group of young people are least able to pay a fine in the order of $2,200, which the bill proposes as a maximum penalty for spraying graffiti on the memorial. Such a heavy fine is not likely to provide a deterrent as the bill intends, but will land young people with a fine they are not able to pay and perhaps even encourage them to commit further crime to obtain the funds to pay off the debt.

The severity of the amendment to section 3 of the Act is of great concern. The maximum penalty of 20 penalty units, or $2,200, is five times the penalty for damaging a shrine, monument or statue, the penalty for which is set at $440 under section 8 of the Summary Offences Act 1988. The effect of the amendment is to suggest that the memorial is five times more valuable than is a shrine that the Catholic Church may hold in high regard, or a monument or statue of the Unknown Soldier.

My point is that I do not believe that increasing a penalty is necessarily the right way to go. Ms Lee Rhiannon pointed out that merely increasing a penalty will not stop something from occurring. It might reduce the incidence of offences of this type if people who think about it, but for many young people, the amendment will not have that effect. Young people my spray-paint their tags or write graffiti for many reasons. One reason is that young people, in common with others in society, need to have structures and symbols with which they can identify and which they can recognise as representing themselves, just as many who have either served their country during wartime or whose loved ones served during wartime respect and identify with the memorial.

Marginalised and alienated young people do not have the structures and symbols that are represented in mainstream society. As a consequence, some of them will seek to stamp their identity on buildings that are situated in the areas that they frequent. That may include buildings that many other people hold dear to their hearts as symbolic of the respect for those who were killed during wars or in bygone generations.

One member of the Opposition suggested that young people may not be aware of what they are doing. The last thing that a young person who is already in a great deal of pain would think about is what the building represents to someone else, because they are consumed by the agony that is inside them. As I stated earlier, I am not excusing what they do. I am trying to understand their motivation; I am trying to step into their shoes to find out why they do these things and to try to prevent them from occurring in the future.

While I acknowledge the appropriate respect that many people in our society hold for war memorials and other shrines, those who are marginalised and alienated are not likely to respond with the same degree of respect. Unfortunately, there is a lack of places in Sydney for young people and, I daresay, children to legally play or do their own thing such as write graffiti tags and produce other so-called art in public spaces. For that reason I ask the Government to seriously consider providing appropriate locations and facilities in public places for young people to perform their graffiti art and create an example of the structure or symbol which they recognise as their own.

It is essential for the New South Wales Government to recognise the need for a range of alternatives to the excessively punitive measures that may only serve to encourage the commission of further crimes. I urge honourable members to consider this matter logically. Members of Parliament are supposed to be intelligent people. If the only solution we can come up with is to increase the fine or to make the penalties more punitive, we are not using our intelligence.

I urge honourable members to think creatively and to come up with some wiser options. Members of Parliament are supposed to be clever, but are we wise? The principles of restorative justice already underpin the juvenile justice conferencing system under which young people are able to address the harm caused to victims of crime rather than be fined or incarcerated in a juvenile justice prison. For that reason I propose an amendment to provide an alternative for the courts which embodies the principle of restorative justice.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [7.13 p.m.], in reply: This has been a long debate on an important matter. I had intended to speak very briefly in reply, and I will still try to do so, but because a number of different points have been made, I should respond in some detail to some of
Page 1184
the contributions made during the debate. I begin by first observing that my personal experience is quite different from that outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot remember the exact month, but it was about two years ago when I was the victim of an armed assault by some young people in College Street.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: You weren’t out with Peter Black, were you?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No, I was not. Like me, he was then a private citizen. At that time, I was minding my own business walking down College Street at approximately 10.30 in the evening when I was attacked by what turned out to be very young people whose ages ranged from 12 or 13 to a person in his early twenties who happened to be armed with a very substantial looking knife. I had not noticed it until quite late in the proceedings of the assault. I quickly used my wits.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: And ran.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No. I did not have the confidence that my legs would carry me fast enough, so I waited for the traffic lights to turn green as I could see a passing taxi and, when the taxi came, I ran into the middle of the road and jumped into it. I called the local police patrol and, I am pleased to say, the offenders were apprehended within 20 minutes. I believe that reflects well on the New South Wales Police Service.

I am happy to report that even if it is only through personal narrative, my experience of the response capacity of law enforcement authorities in that precinct of the city is that it is pretty handy indeed. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a number of matters that are gravely serious. He has described the problems facing law enforcement officers who are dealing with that area of the city and neighbouring areas. However, it seems to me that not all is totally dark in that area.

I turn from the law enforcement issue which I regard as a minor part of the legislation before the House to what I believe are the more substantive issues, albeit not matters that would necessarily preoccupy honourable members during the normal course of the business of this House. Because the Leader of the Opposition takes a very strong interest in books that I read or do not read, acknowledge or do not acknowledge, I preface my remarks by saying that a short time ago I read a fantastic book by W. H. Downing titled To the Last Ridge. I am not aware whether other honourable members have read it, but if it had been published in the 1920s, it would have been the Australian equivalent of The Good Soldier Svejk and his Fortunes in the World War or All Quiet on the Western Front. It is a classic narrative account of an Australian digger at the European front during the period 1915 to 1917.

I will recount a great anecdote from that book because it may well sum up the middle ground between the differing views on our great Australian military heritage. I will recount my favourite anecdote from the book by paraphrasing from memory. A small unit of Australian soldiers were confronted with a major German counterattack after an assault by allied troops. During the course of the morning, as they were moving to withdraw from their position, they came across a very significant force of French soldiers in retreat whose officers unfortunately had mainly been killed in the engagement immediately beforehand.

The soldiers were in complete disarray and were being rapidly pursued by a number of very well-armed German soldiers from a very well trained unit. Fortunately for the French soldiers, the lieutenant accompanying the Australian unit knew that one of his soldiers who held the rank of private spoke very good French, so he instructed the private to take command of the very substantial French unit. I am not a military historian, but I believe that the unit was something in the order of brigade strength.

The private took command of the good few hundred French soldiers and set up their positions so that they could defend themselves from the German attack. For some hours, this Australian private commanded a very substantial number of French troops in the field. When French officers arrived at the front to take command of their troops and sort out the Australian officer who had been doing such a great job of keeping the troops in line and saving their lives, they were confronted with the supreme national embarrassment of discovering that the troops had been commanded by someone who held the rank of private in the Australian army.

I do not recount that anecdote out of any sense of machismo or jingoism. I believe it sums up a great deal of what we are saying about our Australian heritage as it manifests itself in our military history. At that time we were innovators and, if there is anything left of this spirit, we still are. We remain fundamentally democratic in attitude. As a national characteristic, we are people who are prepared to put ourselves out to help others. We remain people who are committed to the virtues of both democracy and ethics in small organisations even though, as the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn said, sometimes the stereotype can allow a pretty heavy
Page 1185
layer of larrikinism, which seems to be a dying element of the Australian character. Perhaps the rest of it is dying as well.

I do not wish to be regarded as an apologist for the American military but, unfortunately, my understanding of the history of the Kokoda Track and the period immediately afterwards was that MacArthur was not the only denigrator of the Australian effort. At that time a number of very senior officials of the Australian military as well as, I am sad to say, the political elite were very critical of the first efforts of the military to defend the Kokoda Track. Indeed, they were paraded as cowards.

General Blamey said that only rabbits run, and referred to them as the running rabbits. He observed that only running rabbits get shot. Of course, in the true Australian tradition, as I understand it, the parade at which these remarks were made resulted in something resembling an exercise in serious dissent. Nonetheless, it happened, and it ought to be recognised as a misunderstanding and an understatement of Australia’s history and achievements that started all those years ago.

It is not something new. I will get to the point, because it is relevant. The Government has taken into account the contributions of the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn and other members. We are very interested in pursuing various programs for the development of a greater oral history of the Kokoda Track and other military conflicts, as well as great nation-forming events. Ms Lee Rhiannon appears to be suffering from false consciousness. The Anzac Memorial does not commemorate the sacrifice of the people of New South Wales. It was a gift from the people of New South Wales, commemorating the sacrifice of citizens of the Commonwealth and New South Wales who lost their lives. That is an important distinction. It is not just any old civic sacred site; it is a civic memorial to people who paid the supreme sacrifice in war.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn spoke of the portrayal of war in movies, books and television. It is important to remember that the Government wants no misunderstanding about the purpose of this legislation. We will accept the amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. A. G. Corbett, the honourable member having agreed to a number of changes. It seems to me that many movies and television programs infer that the war was prosecuted by Curt Jurgens and John Wayne, and people of that ilk and status. The fact is that the two great wars of the last two generations were prosecuted by people whom honourable members in this Chamber, given our average age, would regard as children. Most of the people who gave their lives in those wars were in their late teens and early 20s.

Society has to consider what those people were sacrificing themselves for. It is my personal view - and one that is probably widely shared - that they were sacrificing themselves for the idea of a tolerant nation, mateship and a fair go, and for a certain irreverence for authority. We should consider that, and not ignore the irony that they were taking the supreme risk. Those young people were risk takers. They may have found it very difficult to live in our society. The Australians who made those sacrifices for us may have found this world equally as confusing as some of the people who undertake this anti-social behaviour.

Honourable members should not think I am going soft. However, we ought to focus on the real significance of the sacrifices those people made and understand that they would want people, even those committing such a serious desecration, to be treated fairly, equitably and reasonably. That is one of the reasons why people laid their lives on the line at Gallipoli and on the Kokoda Track and made the supreme sacrifice. Honourable members should not fail to understand the reason for that sacrifice.

I am saddened that we will not be able to come to a unanimous view on this legislation. The Government accepts the amendments proposed by the Hon. A. G. Corbett because effectively the provision in the bill seems to repeat, although narrowly, the common law prerogative. Magistrates would have their prerogative limited by the trust, on application by the offender, and limited by the circumstances of the offender. Therefore, we would be taking away the discretion that a magistrate might otherwise have. On that basis the Government accepts the honourable member’s amendment. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [7.28 p.m.]: I move:

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1 [2], proposed section 11. Insert after line 25:

Page 1186

(5) The court may also, on the application of the convicted person and with the consent of the trustees, order that the person must, under the supervision of a person or class of persons designated by the court, personally repair or restore, or assist in the repair or restoration of, any damage caused by the action that resulted in the conviction, as an alternative to paying the whole or a specified part of an amount ordered to be paid by the person under subsection (1).

(6) Compliance with an order under subsection (5) is, to the extent indicated in the order, taken to be satisfaction of the order under subsection (1).

In my speech I referred to justice. Many people likely to be convicted under this bill will be juveniles and young adults who are unemployed or earning low incomes. They will be unable to pay the large fine provided for in this bill, the maximum penalty being $2,200. They are also likely to be marginalised and alienated from mainstream society and, therefore, the increased fine is unlikely to serve as an effective deterrent. This amendment will enable the court, upon application of the person convicted and with the consent of the trustee, to order that the person assist in the repair of the memorial. This repair work would be considered as an alternative to paying the whole or a specified part of the amount ordered as compensation under clause 11 (1) of the bill.

The trustees defined in the Anzac Memorial Building Act 1923 are the Premier of the State, the Leader of the Opposition, the Lord Mayor of Sydney, the Public Trustee, the President of the Returned Services League of Australia, New South Wales Branch, the President of the Limbless Soldiers Association (New South Wales) Incorporated and the President of the TB Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Association of New South Wales Incorporated. So they will be the people who will decide, provided that the court allows that to occur, because the court does not have to allow it. The amendment reads:

The court may also, on the application of the convicted person and with the consent of the trustees . . .

So it is the trustees who will decide whether this goes ahead. We know that the trustees have the power. They shall be responsible for the completion, care, management, maintenance and preservation of the memorial building and for the care, management, maintenance and preservation of the land dedicated for such a building. We know clearly who the trustees are and know that they have the power and the authority. But ultimately it comes down to the person actually applying to do the restorative work. I would think that would be a pretty good sign that the person was sorry for damaging the memorial. With those remarks, I commend the amendment.


The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [7.32 p.m.]: The Hon. A. G. Corbett talked about the way in which the trustees will work together to ensure that there is a good deal for the memorial. Honourable members need only look at the way in which the crossbenchers in this State can collectively come to an agreement and have a cohesive approach on legislative reform to realise that each sees things from a different angle. The trustees will have exactly the same approach. Some will agree it is the way to go while others will say that the legislation should be stronger. There will be total disarray.

I cannot believe for one moment that the Special Minister for State would enter this Chamber after the Premier has said, "We are going to crack down on these people who are defacing the memorial so that the traditions of the memorial will be upheld," and say, "But we are going to accept this because it is not a bad deal and it looks after people." This amendment is fraught with danger. It is a capitulation, a watering down of the proposed legislation by stealth. The message that goes out to the media is totally different from the final position arrived at in this Chamber.

Let me touch on a couple of points. The use of the words "on the application of the convicted person" in the amendment will weaken the discretion that the court has under malicious damage legislation currently in place in New South Wales. If a person damages somebody’s motor vehicle or somebody’s suit by putting a cigarette into the sleeve, the court will impose a harsher penalty than it would impose for damage to the Anzac Memorial. Under this amendment, a person doing $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 worth of damage to the memorial will be dealt with more leniently than the person doing $5 worth of damage to somebody’s suit or scribbling on the footpath a hundred metres away from the memorial.

This amendment would weaken the approach of the courts to the application of their discretion. There is already a provision within the court system to allow an convicted person to make a submission to a magistrate on the determination of penalty. The amendment would weaken the ability of the presiding magistrate in that court to use his or her discretion because of the words "on the application". I cannot think of any other legislation in this State that says "provided that the offender agrees to the
Page 1187
penalty the court can give him or her a subsequent penalty". I cannot think of anything more ridiculous. It would set an extremely dangerous precedent, and I hope to goodness this is not the way this Government intends to pursue law and order in this State.

I accept that many of these types of offences are committed by young people. The youth conferencing procedures in place in New South Wales give young people the opportunity to accept that they are liable, that they have done wrong, and to put in train certain measures to ensure that restitution is made and that the same type of offence will not happen again. There is no need for us to go this way. It is an absolutely unnecessary amendment and I, for the life of me, am amazed as to why we are debating it.

As the Hon. J. M. Samios said, at the right time in the debate it sends the wrong signal to the people of New South Wales, especially those who wish to damage the Anzac Memorial, that if they write graffiti upon the Anzac Memorial it will be they who make the final determination on penalty. However, if they were to damage any other property they can expect the law to be strong and resilient and not allow flexibility in the determination of penalty. The Opposition opposes the amendment.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [7.37 p.m.]: I speak against the amendment. I believe that honourable members may have been working on the assumption that the penalties to be included in the bill are the maximum penalties. We are forgetting that the magistrate will have a discretion and should have a discretion up until then. Each case should be judged on its merits. Without a visible presence of guards some may not know the significance of a memorial. The Minister in his response referred to the other enemy that the Australian soldiers faced in Papua New Guinea. They were berated not only by Macarthur but by his chief of staff, Sutherland. Blamey did not understand; the politicians did not understand. They actually all went to Port Moresby and to the edge of the track, had a look, became experts in 24 hours, came back and reported, but they would not take note of the conditions under which the soldiers were fighting.

In 1992 I took a veteran of 70 by the name of Les Cook to Papua New Guinea. He had fought on the Kokoda Track when he was 19. He told us how the soldiers felt. Even in the depths of that despair the Australian humour was still evident. He recited a poem which indicated to me how the Diggers interpreted the sort of beating they were getting. The Minister at the time was Frank Forde, who had visited for a short period before returning to Australia. Of course he was no friend of Blamey’s, as honourable members know. The poem reads:

A bunch of Nips were whooping it up
Along the old Kokoda Track
And things were looking pretty bad
With our boys falling back
A call went out for Superman to halt the enemy horde
A message was flashed to Canberra
"Send Fearless Frankie Forde".
So Fearless Frank threw down his pen
And doffed his old toupee,
He crammed his briefcase full of reports
And up the Track strode he.
Up through the mud and slush and rain he climbed
On that fateful day
‘til he reached a spot where the enemy
Was a short five miles away.
And he stood on the Track
With his hat turned back
And boldly shout "Shoo!"
And all that stood twixt him and the foe
Was a fighting brigade or two.
Well that was the end of things for the Japs.
The men who fought there tell
How the infantry heard the sound of the "Shoo!"
And each man muttered "Hell!"
So they closed with the sons of Nippon
And sent them reeling back
In disarray and sad dismay
Along the old Kokoda Track.
"We’d rather fight," said the Infantry,
"Than stand around and be bored
By a two-hour speech
And a sheaf of reports
From Fearless Frankie Forde."

That sense of humour and the mateship that the Diggers had was typical, even in those dark days of the campaign. Referring again to the amendment moved by the Hon. A. G. Corbett, I believe that we should leave the discretion where it is. Anyone committing such an offence should be aware that heavy penalties will apply. However, I do not believe that those penalties will apply in all instances. Each case should be judged on its merits. We should leave the discretion to the magistrate hearing the case. He will be able to work out the most appropriate penalty.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [7.42 p.m.]: I have a problem with this amendment, which is classic grandstanding of the worst sort. The amendment states in part:

The court may also, on the application of the convicted person and with the consent of the trustees . . .

The Hon. A. G. Corbett said that he was concerned about how the trustees might vote. I am a trustee and I can tell honourable members that the trustees meet every two months. We will not leave graffiti on the war memorial until a case is heard by a
Page 1188
magistrate and the trustees have assembled and voted on the matter. The amendment moved by the Hon. A. G. Corbett is so damn stupid. It is a pity that the he does not listen to debates in this Chamber. He said that we should be more constructive and do more to alleviate this problem. The Premier has allocated $1 million to protect the war memorial at night. Guards and dogs now patrol and protect the park. They are even there to protect people like the Minister who might be crossing the park at night. Of course we are doing something to alleviate this problem!

The amendment moved by the Hon. A. G. Corbett - it is simply arrant nonsense - will delay the passage of this bill for three weeks until the lower House can again debate it. The bill will be delayed because of this banality, which will not achieve anything. As was so clearly stated earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, this amendment is nothing but nonsense; it is grandstanding on the part of the Hon. A. G. Corbett that will not work. If this amendment is agreed to I will not ask the trustees to wait until a matter is heard before the war memorial is cleaned up. Of course it will be cleaned up. If the magistrate wants to impose a community service order on an offender he has a discretion to do that, but the trustees will not wait until a matter has been heard in court before they act to clean up the war memorial.

If honourable members are concerned about the fact that an offender - a delicate little angel - is not therefore able to learn something about the war memorial they can rest assured that that can be achieved when he or she is tending the grass or doing something else around the war memorial. This amendment is nothing other than a grandstanding exercise by the Hon. A. G. Corbett. Government members should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this sort of nonsense to interfere with the passage of the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [7.43 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is disappointed in the fact that the Hon. A. G. Corbett has moved an amendment to this bill. I do not think he realises how his amendment will totally change the bill. For the first time a Labor Government was going to make a strong, philosophical, moral and political statement about the importance of the Anzac tradition. This bill is symbolic. We expected newspapers to carry headlines stating, "The Parliament is united.

Labor, Liberal, National and crossbench members from both Houses of Parliament send a loud and clear message to every young person, teenage rebel, vandal and graffiti writer: The war memorial is a no-go area. Do not touch the Anzac War Memorial or any other Anzac memorial." The purpose of this bill was to send that message. All that the amendment of the Hon. A. G. Corbett will do is water-down the legislation. It will become wishy-washy legislation which will have no effect at all. We want to say to teenage rebels: Keep your hands off the Anzac Memorial and all other memorials.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [7.45 p.m.]: I will explain to honourable members why I am concerned about this amendment. The Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutes offenders in the courts on behalf of all the people of New South Wales. They are all represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions in our system of blind justice. It is not traditional in this country for victims to participate in the awarding of a penalty. This legislation will break that mould and victims will actually be able to determine the nature of a penalty. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Hon. A. G. Corbett that such a matter should come before the court, that persons should make applications and that the trustees should meet and specifically agree on the matter.

The trustees, in so far as they represent returned service men and women, are the aggrieved party and very much the victims. The war memorial represents their feelings and values. I do not believe that they would want to be put in the position where they would have to make such a decision. They would be somewhat divided. Certainly, they would understand the specific circumstances of an individual, but imagine then adding to their agony by asking them to make a decision about the nature of the penalty that should be imposed. That is not fair to them. I believe that they would rather not be asked.

The State should make that decision on their behalf, as it does for every other victim of crime. That really is a major problem. Another category of people are represented by the trustees - members of Parliament, for example, the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier and other honourable members. Politicians have never been required to involve themselves in or to interfere with the setting of a penalty by a court. This amendment will give politicians an opportunity to become involved.

If I were one of the politicians that had made such a decision and somebody said to me, "Will you accept the application of someone who wants to do this?", the political process would compel me to vote against it. It would not be possible to vote. I
Page 1189
would be dead scared that other politicians would do the same thing. This penalty has become a political question and that should never be the case. This amendment, which is full of difficulties, contains fundamental problems regarding the legal system. I know that the Leader of the Government has been instructed by the Premier to accept this amendment. I in no way wish to cast aspersions on him, and I accept the intent of the Government in introducing this legislation. However, I do not believe that it has fully considered the implications of this amendment.

On a busy day such as today I suspect that the Premier had a lot on his mind, as I did when I first looked at this amendment. It appeared to be restating existing law, and it did not matter much. But it is not restating existing law. Existing law requires only that a magistrate show such discretion; it does not require trustees or members of Parliament to meet to make a decision. This legislation is seeking to address the penalty that will apply for this sort of crime. The maximum penalty will apply to crimes of this nature and there will be no extenuating circumstances. A person in financially necessitous circumstances would not be in a position to pay $2,200, or make an application to the court for the matter to be dealt with accordingly. I am sure that even magistrates who strike fear and terror - as did our former colleague the Hon. Patricia Staunton - would listen to each submission and show appropriate compassion, where relevant.

I have one other general concern about this amendment. It will create a loophole which the Government never intended to create. At the moment vandalism of the war memorial is a malicious act. If we accept that sort of vandalism without comment it will not be long before somebody commits an act of vandalism against the war memorial to make some political point or to gain some publicity. Those persons might well be the sort of people who make an application and thus evade any penalty which the law might wish to impose on them. They will put trustees through further agony by requiring them to have to make a public decision. These incidents do not happen very often, but trustees will have to make a public decision about what should happen.

Whatever the intent of this amendment and however well-intentioned it might be on the part of the Government or on the part of the Hon. A. G. Corbett, honourable members should not vote for it. It will not create any new discretion; it will create a number of problems to which I do not believe we should be subjected. I urge the Hon. A. G. Corbett to do the decent thing and withdraw his amendment. I do not believe, having been confronted with the facts, that even the Hon. A. G. Corbett accepts that politicians have any part in determining penalty or that a committee of trustees ought to be embarrassed by having to make a decision about some event that occurs within the memorial.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [7.50 p.m.]: I moved this amendment with the very best motive. If people did something wrong and wanted to make some restitution for the damage they had done, they could do something practical rather than simply pay a few dollars. I acknowledge that some practical difficulties exist. I do not want this bill to be blown up into a political hot potato with people scoring political points; that is not why I drafted the amendment. Therefore, I withdraw the amendment. However, I ask honourable members to appreciate that some young people will not be able to afford the fines, and one way in which they can make restitution is to participate in cleaning up that which they have damaged or defaced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [7.51 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. A. G. Corbett for electing to withdraw his amendment. The Government respects the principle behind the honourable member’s intentions. However, we are almost unanimous on this bill, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.