Page: 14577
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [3.10 p.m.]: I move:
That this House condemns the Victorian Trades Hall Council for conducting a protest rally in Melbourne on Remembrance Day.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Which year?
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: It was 2003. Remembrance Day has been a day of national remembrance since 1918. Members have to rely on the lottery of the system in this Chamber for private members' business and the time has finally arrived for my motion to be debated. It is important to put on the record again our feeling towards people using remembrance days—whether Remembrance Day, Anzac Day or Kokoda Day—as days of protest for their own ideological cause. Australian defence forces have fought to preserve the liberty that allows people freedom of expression and belief and all the other freedoms we enjoy, many of which we take for granted. Protest rallies by union movements on these very significant days are an abuse of that freedom.
I am sure all members are aware of the origins of Remembrance Day. At 5.00 a.m. on 11 November 1918 three German Government representatives accepted the armistice terms presented to them by an Allied commander, General Foch of the French Army. The demands of the armistice included the withdrawal of German forces to the east bank of the Rhine within 30 days, immediate cessation of warfare, and surrender of the German fleet and all heavy guns, with no further negotiations until the signing of the peace treaty. The armistice became effective at 11.00 a.m. the same day and, as the guns fell silent on the Western Front in France and Belgium, four years of hostilities ended. The ceasefire was made permanent the following year when members of the Commonwealth and the League of Nations signed the Treaty of Versailles.
People across the world celebrated the war's end, celebrations tempered by thoughts of the enormous suffering and loss of life resulting from the war. More than 416,000 Australians volunteered for service in World War I. Of these, 324,000 served overseas. More than 60,000 Australians were killed, including 45,000 who died on the Western Front in France and Belgium and more than 8,000 who died on the Gallipoli Peninsula in Turkey. In Australia and other allied countries, including New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America, 11 November became known as Armistice Day, the day to remember those who died in World War I. Today it continues to be commemorated in allied countries.
After World War II the Australian Government agreed to the United Kingdom's proposal that Armistice Day be renamed Remembrance Day to commemorate those who were killed in both world wars. Today the loss of Australian lives in all wars and conflicts is commemorated on Remembrance Day. In October 1997 the Governor-General issued a proclamation declaring 11 November as Remembrance Day, a day to remember the sacrifice of those who have died for Australia in wars and conflicts. The proclamation reinforced the importance of Remembrance Day and encouraged all Australians to renew their observance of the event. In May 1915 Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps was working in a dressing station on the front line to the north of Ypres, Belgium, when he wrote In Flanders Fields:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie in Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe;
To you, from falling hands, we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break the faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.
Sir Evelyn Wrench, who wrote "Struggle 1914-1918" in They Saw It Happen, recalled that in Victoria Street in London at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month:
… a group of Australian 'boys' accompanied by a band and their girls decorated in red, white and blue, were swinging down towards Whitehall to the huge delight of all spectators... In Whitehall we got blocked, but what did it matter? We danced on the buses, we danced on the lorries, we danced on the pavement, we shouted, we sang... the office boys and girls at the War Office yelled to their companions across the way; we cheered and cheered again and again, while the Church bells rang out a peal of jubilation...
It is little wonder that Australian soldiers were dancing in the streets. Armistice Day marked the end of the bloodiest war the world had ever seen. Although Australia became a nation in 1901, its loyalties still lay with Britain. So the Australian Government committed itself to supporting the British war effort and Australian men volunteered to fight and die on the battlefields of Europe, Turkey and the Middle East. Our Anzac troops earned a reputation for their gallantry and courage under dreadful conditions. They were often used by the British commanders in the first wave of an assault, leading to heavy casualties. Nearly 8,000 Australians men died in the Dardanelles campaign, 800 at Lone Pine, the most famous of the Gallipoli battlegrounds.
The experience was no better for the Australians at the Western Front. The front ran for more than 750 kilometres, from the English Channel to the French-Swiss border, and was marked by irregular rows of trenches. The names of the places and battles fought there are part of the collective Australian memory: the Somme, Pozieres, Ypres, Villers-Bretonneux, Bullecourt, Amiens, Passchendaele and the Hindenburg Line. Ten thousand Australians died at Bullecourt, nearly 23,000 died on the Somme. The official war historian C. W. Bean wrote of the Australian engagement at the Somme that the men there were "simply turned in there as into some ghastly giant mincing machine". He went on to say of the Australian Diggers:
Yet at heart even the oldest Australian soldier was incorrigibly civilian. However thoroughly he accepted the rigid army methods as conditions temporarily necessary, he never became reconciled to continuous obedience to orders, existence by rule, and lack of privacy. His individualism had been so strongly implanted as to stand out after years of subordination. Even on the Western Front he had exercised his vote in the Australian elections and in the referendums as to conscription, and it was largely through his own act in these ballots that the Australian people had rejected conscription and that, to the end, the A.I.F. consisted entirely of volunteers. He was subject to no death penalty for disobedience or failure to face the enemy.
From the great loss in the Great War we decided that we would remember that sacrifice and remember the values that our servicemen fought and died for. I remember going through primary school as a child at St Joseph's in Orbost. There was a very strong national feeling for Remembrance Day. At 11.00 a.m. on the eleventh day of the eleventh month the country literally stopped. The traffic stopped. People paused for a minute to reflect. That has gone by the way a little: although the ceremonies are still held traffic continues to flow. The observance is probably not as strong. But, as they say, if we forget history we are destined to repeat it.
Australians again distinguished themselves on the field of battle in World War II. Many battles are symbolic of our sacrifice in that war. One I am closely associated with in trying to ensure that it takes its proper place in our history is the Kokoda campaign, not because I think Kokoda is any more important than all the other campaigns Australia was involved in but it is symbolic. People have at least heard the name Kokoda, and they respond to it. I am hoping that having Kokoda properly enshrined into our education system will create a desire in children to learn about the other battles that Australians were involved in in the Pacific, including the Battle of the Beaches at Buna and Gona, Sanananda, Milne Bay, Lae, Finchafen, Shaggy Ridge and Bougainville, and the efforts of our commandos, coast watchers and naval forces in the Battle of the Coral Sea, at Midway and in the air.
Before the Battle of the Pacific our troops were engaged in Europe and in the Middle East. They distinguished themselves, under Australian command, at places such as Tobruk, El Alamein and the Western Desert. Australians are interesting soldiers. Our leaders and our soldiers are not schooled in military traditions, as they are in England where they go through Sandhurst. If a soldier's father was rich enough or well enough connected he would buy that soldier a commission and he would become a commander of men. Generation after generation of soldiers come out of West Point. For example, I refer to William Macarthur and subsequent generations of the Macarthur family. Australians are not like that; they do not have that military tradition. However, we have a fine tradition of graduates from Duntroon, Portsea and Scheyville.
Basically, during the war our soldiers and leaders came off the farms and out of the public service, the banks and industry. They were just ordinary young people who took up the cause. Those who had a few schmicks and could earn their stripes did so largely on the battlefield. In the process of getting their promotion they earned the one thing that money cannot buy—the respect of their troops for the cause in which they were fighting. As a result of the trust and respect that they had for each other and their disrespect for foolish types of orders and so forth the bonds amongst those Diggers made them a special breed. That was epitomised in an incident that I remember reading about concerning General "Tubby" Allen, our commander of the 7th division on the Kokoda trail. General Allen was in a Land Rover with General Douglas MacArthur—that imperious, quite egotistical commander of the American Army. They were riding together up to Ower's Corner.
The Diggers coming back from the war were walking along and they saw this great general and a fat little Australian general sitting beside him. The Diggers yelled out, "G'day Tubby. How are you, Tubby? G'day Tub." The general said, "Good on you boys. How are you boys?" MacArthur and his staff were aghast that private soldiers would be calling their general "Tubby", but they totally misread it; it was respect. If they had called him "General" it would have been seen as a form of disrespect. That is the Australian way. It is something of which we should all be proud and it reflects our egalitarian spirit. Wars were not fought along political lines, ideological lines and so forth. We were all Australian. It did not matter whether we voted Labor, Liberal or Callithumpian. That is one of the great strengths that we have. I believe that young Australians need to know about this and they need to respect it. I will refer in a moment to why that is so.
The turning point was our involvement in Vietnam. Our Vietnam involvement was a different involvement because we had conscription. Some people were sent off to Vietnam against their will, but I was a conscript. I was a volunteer for Vietnam and I served in Vietnam. I forgot to get out and I finished up spending 21 years in the Army. So I served right through that national service period. The odd protester or two got an enormous amount of publicity, out of all proportion to what they were representing. The great majority of national servicemen went in with the same spirit of service as their fathers and their grandfathers before them. They did what they thought was right for their country at the time. The great strength about Australians is that we serve the government of the day, irrespective of our political beliefs. That was not the issue for us; the issue was wearing the uniform and doing what we were ordered to do. We went to Vietnam.
Then there was what I would call the great betrayal. It is the first time in our history when our troops, our Diggers, our soldiers were betrayed by the Australian people through the moratorium marches. Their own people betrayed them. I have spoken in this Parliament before about the fact that we did not mind that they attacked politicians for the decisions that they had made, as that was a good thing. Young 20-year-old men would go over there thinking that they were doing the right thing and they were proud to be serving their country. They put up with and saw stuff that would affect them for the rest of their lives. When they came back they were told on the plane to change out of their Army uniforms, to sneak out the back of the airport, to get on a truck and to go home, and that their discharge papers would be sent to them. That was because left-wing ideological enemy collaborators were at the gates waiting to abuse them, to throw paint at them, to spit at them, to throw flour at them, to call them baby killers and so forth. A generation of soldiers never recovered from that great betrayal. It was a disgrace. As a result, a lot of Vietnam veterans dropped out of society and they still wear those deep scars. It is something of which we should be ashamed.
There is now a swing back to appreciating the service performed by our Vietnam veterans. Young people are now quite proud to say, after many years, "My father was a Vietnam veteran." But I do not meet any young kids going around saying proudly, "My father was a Vietnam protester", so that has passed. Unfortunately, after Vietnam everything was seen as a glorification of war. They seemed to think that we loved fighting; that we loved to go to war. For those who have been to war there is nothing glorious about war. Those who have been to war probably are the strongest anti-war advocates there are. When we have seen first-hand what it does to our mates and we have witnessed the post-traumatic stress we realise that war is futile.
The Diggers in the 39th Battalion who fought in Kokoda against the Japanese have been holding joint commemoration services with the Japanese 144th regiment. The soldiers on both sides realised that they were young men doing what they thought was right for their country at the time. They experienced war against each other and they never want their children or grandchildren to live through the horrors that they experienced. They thought of the idea of having these joint commemoration services. One year the Japanese soldiers and their families come to Australia and the following year we go to Japan. They thought that was a small act of reconciliation that might well prevent a war between our nations from happening again.
So there is great honour and respect amongst veterans. During the war there was a most shameful incident involving our unions. I do not want to say that I am a union basher because I am not. I believe that unions have a proper role in society in the genuine protection of workers' rights. However, when we get an ideological mix and unions become involved in issues that have nothing to do with workers' rights, their working conditions, their safety and so forth, they misrepresent issues or they are hijacked by ideologists who use them as fodder for their cause. A lot of people do not realise that during the Kokoda campaign, which without doubt was the darkest moment in our history, troops were fighting a desperate battle under the most horrific conditions and in terrain that was as rugged as anything on this planet. It is bad enough that they had to endure those conditions without having an enemy that outnumbered them by 6:1, 8:1 or 10:1. During that time we were short of supplies, food and vital ammunition. Right at the moment when we desperately needed the support of our home country the unions in Townsville went on strike because they wanted better money and conditions.
Our troops were running out of ammunition. They had no food. They were living on cans of bully beef—when they could get a feed—while the unions in Australia went on strike. It is the most shameful chapter in union history. Nobody could defend or be proud of that action, which brought great discredit on the unions involved. Our soldiers loaded the ships: They swept the striking workers aside and handled it. Fortunately, we were able to stem the Japanese tide by the slimmest of margins and, against all the odds, were successful in that campaign.
The same heroic unions identified our vulnerability during the Vietnam War and stopped the mail. When I went to Vietnam my daughter Jill was nine months old. As I have said before in this place, my greatest fear was that I would never see my child or my family again. Diggers to whom I have spoken since said they shared this fear with regards to their families. So my letters from mum, dad and my wife, which arrived almost daily while I was overseas, reinforced me greatly. But then the mail stopped coming and letters did not arrive for often a month at a time—and a month is a long time in a war zone. The diggers used to say, "Punch a postie when you get home", but they were lambasted for inciting their friends to punch posties. Feelings were running very high, and the mail strike was a great betrayal. The unions attacked us by cutting off our link with our home—there was no telephone contact in those days—and they attacked us again when we returned to Australia. It is a shameful episode in our history.
Post Vietnam, records of our activities in the area were removed from the system. No Anzac Day services were held in our schools—my three daughters were students in those days—and national pride was undermined. People wanted to change our flag; they wanted Australia to become a republic. That is a good debate to have in a free society. It is great that we have that freedom. But many people simply wanted to change who and what we are. There was a lack of belief and faith in our identity. I believe Australia is a great country and a very tolerant society. I believe Australia's multiculturalism is one of our great strengths. I fully support migrants teaching their children and grandchildren to speak their traditional language and understand their culture because those children will be our proud Australian global ambassadors in the future. I believe most Australians share that view, but they do not like to be taken for granted.
The lack of belief in our Australian identity has had a most debilitating effect. People with no belief system have no reason to exist. I have kept an article that appeared in the Australian some years ago that had an enormous impact on me. It appeared under the headline "Youth and the Challenge of Change" and refers to the findings of a survey—which could have been conducted in an area like Macquarie Fields. The article states:
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 of 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.
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 in 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.
That belief can be instilled through pride—pride in who we are as individuals, as a family and as a nation. Australia has much to be proud of. I think we punch well above our weight internationally. We have so many achievements, such as our penetration of overseas markets and our winning bid for the Sydney Olympics. We are, without doubt, the wealthiest nation in the world in terms of our quality of life, our democracy and our freedom. We should be very proud of that. However, we must instil that pride in our education system so that young people are proud to be the descendants of those who carved out our identity.
Last week there was a graffiti attack on the Australian War Memorial. It was not prompted by anti-war sentiments; it was simply a mindless act. People do not understand the significance of that building. The Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway at Concord is often vandalised. We cannot blame the kids for these attacks because they do not appreciate the significance of our memorials. We should blame the educators, the filmmakers who have not produced movies or documentaries about Kokoda and the authors who have not written books on the subject. That is starting to happen now. We must give our young people something to believe in.
About 10 years ago I had the great fortune of running against Mark Latham in the Federal seat of Werriwa. My contribution to that campaign has never been recognised. I let him win because I knew—I had the vision—that he would not make it.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Well done, Charlie.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My efforts were unsung, but that is the way it went.
The Hon. Rick Colless: You are still here and Latham's gone.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Indeed. I remember the campaign for a single action on my part. At the time I was brand new to politics and this was a national campaign.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: How old were you, Charlie?
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I was very young; I was only about 50. I went to Macquarie Fields at the invitation of a bloke there who had a job. He had complained to me that when he returned from work every afternoon people who were on the street drinking grog called him a "dog" because he had a job. His kids were attacked at school because he was said to be "wealthy". This man wanted to do something about his situation. After my visit I was interviewed by a journalist from the Bulletin, who asked, "Well, what do you think of that place?" I replied, "It's a bit of a ghetto." Well, it was as though I had called in an artillery attack upon myself! Every do-gooder in the country, the Labor Party and the media attacked and lambasted me. I explained that I was not talking about the buildings. The house in which the family I met were living would have been considered luxurious compared with the one in which I grew up. Ten of us lived in a two-bedroom house—that is all Mum and Dad could afford—so my brother and I had to sleep on a veranda. But we did not think we were poor because our family life was rich.
I watched media coverage of the blow-up at Macquarie Fields the other night. They blew me out of the water years ago so no-one else was game to speak out on the issue. Anyone familiar with Macquarie Fields will know that bad stuff has been going on day after day for the past 10 years or more. We allowed that to happen. The children who were throwing rocks at the police the other night would have been aged six or seven when I made my comment and if we had addressed the problems in Macquarie Fields then perhaps we would not have the problems we have today. The kids of Macquarie Fields say they have no hope. We must give them something to believe in. We must get them into the education system and give them something to be proud of. We must extend our hand to them and try to break the cycle. We will not achieve all those goals in a single generation, but we must start somewhere.
So let us start by honouring the three great days that we celebrate each year: Remembrance Day, Anzac Day and Long Tan Day. I am not telling people to stay away from work on all those days; I am merely asking them to pause, reflect, remember and respect. I call on the unions to do the same and to honour those days. I say to the unions: By all means, have your protest marches—and Australia is about having the freedom to do that—
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: There are another 360-odd days to do that.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I agree. People should protest on other days and honour those three days. If they work together, they will have a lot more respect from people on the other side of politics, and it will give future generations of Australians something to be proud of and to believe in together. I commend the motion.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.40 p.m.]: I will speak but briefly on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party to this motion, which supports the recognition of days of cultural and historical significance for community remembrance, such as Remembrance Day, Anzac Day and Kokoda Day, and I include two others that are well known, Good Friday and Christmas Day. The Victorian Trades Hall Council did, in fact, abuse a day of remembrance. Also, I am ashamed to say, within the past week in the same area of Melbourne, a Uniting Church clergyman refused to allow a flag to be draped on the coffin of a returned serviceman at a funeral service. Clergy should have much more sense than to react so stupidly.
I realise that some people oppose war or have pacifist feelings, but no-one should have the power to deny the family of a deceased ex-serviceman the right to place the Australian flag on the coffin of their loved one. I reflect upon funerals I have conducted in the past few weeks. I recall the funeral of a former Commissioner of Police who was buried with full police honours. Should we have removed the police hat from his coffin? Should we have removed the Masonic symbol from another man's coffin whose funeral I conducted? Even more poignantly, should we not have allowed the many distinguished medals of a nurse, who was also a prisoner of war, to be carried on a pillow before her coffin?
It does not matter to me that a protest is organised by unions, students, employers or public servants on Remembrance Day, Anzac Day, Kokoda Day or any other significant day; some days are not appropriate for protest action—and sometimes clergymen should keep quiet on certain issues! This motion condemns the Victorian Trades Hall Council, and I would join in condemning anyone who is insensitive to the cultural, social and religious mores of others. I mentioned earlier a Uniting Church clergyman who ministers in a church at Mooney Ponds. I have particular affection for that church, and have preached in it on a number of occasions. My uncle, the Reverend H. P. Keith Gordon, was a minister at that church. He was a hero in my eyes and also in the eyes of the Methodist Church.
My uncle was superintendent of the Methodist Overseas Mission in Papua and New Guinea at the outbreak of the Second World War, and he refused to escape and come back to Australia, as he was ordered to by the Methodist Overseas Mission. He stayed to support the Papuan and New Guinean people during the Japanese invasion. He was a prisoner of war for years. I shudder when I realise that the minister who succeeded him in Mooney Ponds refused to allow an Australian flag to be placed on the coffin of an ex-serviceman. I join with others in condemning the Victorian Trades Hall Council for its action on this day, as I would condemn anyone who is insensitive to the cultural, social and religious mores of others.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.44 p.m.]: I support the motion that this House condemns the Victorian Trades Hall Council for conducting a protest rally in Melbourne on Remembrance Day. In supporting the motion I am not being critical of the Victorian Trades Hall Council but of the attitude that was demonstrated on that day by a minority who do not respect Remembrance Day, Anzac Day or the observance of other special events in our society. We should promote respect for these days of significance in memory of the men and women who gave their lives in the service of their country so that we can share in our democratic freedom and parliamentary activities.
I am concerned also about the increasing number of attacks on our war memorials. I realise that among those attacks is the odd case of vandalism, perpetuated, generally speaking, by misguided teenagers. But I sense something more sinister in the more recent attacks. I refer specifically to the attack on the Cenotaph in Martin Place when the bayonets on the statues of the Australian soldier and sailor were broken and bent. That was an attack by someone who is anti-Australia, and against our former servicemen and those presently serving in Iraq. That person was making a political statement; there was no graffiti and it was not evident who committed the attack. I do not recall any other attack on that memorial, which is one of our sacred places.
There has been a recent attack on the Hyde Park War Memorial. Such attacks are occurring more frequently. There have been attacks on war memorials in other suburbs and in country centres, including Wollongong. That is a matter of great concern. It is a tragedy. It should not be necessary to have security guards, at great expense, watching over memorials around our city and Australia. The Government should give some thought to trying to discourage such behaviour.
I am concerned also about the unnecessary controversy that has arisen over the Anzac Day observance at Gallipoli. I understand that John Farnham had accepted Prime Minister Howard's invitation to participate in the ceremony but that New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clark, objected to a pop concert being conducted at such a significant site. John Farnham has said that he is hurt by that statement because it was not his intention to be involved with a pop concert. John Farnham, as much as anyone else, respects the tradition of Anzac Day. He said he would choose songs that were appropriate for the reverent and serious occasion. It is a pity that he was dragged into the controversy and was misrepresented.
I am particularly supportive of Premier Carr's renewed emphasis on citizenship, and for insisting that Australian history, including the importance and meaning of Anzac Day and other significant events, is taught in our public schools. We need to make sure that the Department of Education and Training is carrying out his instructions in the classrooms because we know that the view of the Premier is contrary to the views of some teachers. Some teachers and principals have said that they would not support the view of the Prime Minister and the Federal education Minister that the Australian flag be raised in our public schools. These teachers do not have a right to impose their personal views on such an important part of our Australian culture and history.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes referred to the use of the Australian flag in church services. I am also concerned about the attitude of a Uniting Church minister to an offer by the RSL to participate in the funeral service of a distinguished serviceman, as is customary, and to place the Australian flag on the deceased's coffin. The Australian slouch hat or medals of ex-servicemen are placed on coffins at a large number of funeral services that have been held at St Andrews Cathedral.
So I was amazed when the Minister objected and said that the Australian flag symbolised militarism and war. The Australian flag is carried in all kinds of events. It is carried and displayed in schools and on our beaches. Obviously, it is carried in wartime, but to say that the flag now represents only war and militarism is to misrepresent the truth about the Australian flag. I am glad that the Anglican Church stepped in and said it would allow the service to be held in its church and the Australian flag to be placed on the coffin. But imagine the distress felt by the family of that ex-serviceman caused by the minister's decision—I think a very thoughtless decision. If somebody said they would boycott his church, I would think he probably deserves that until he comes to his right senses. I support the motion and I congratulate the Hon. Charlie Lynn not only on moving the motion but on his speech, which obviously comes from his heart. I know that some members on occasions mock the Hon. Charlie Lynn, but I believe he makes a quite unique contribution to this Parliament by the emphasis he brings to these matters and the knowledge that he imparts as he addresses us. I thank him for his contribution.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.50 p.m.]: I oppose the motion. At the outset I want to acknowledge the contribution that the Hon. Charlie Lynn made in his long and detailed speech on the military history of Australia and the great tradition of Australian diggers and soldiers and support staff. It was an excellent speech in many respects. However, I am disappointed by the adverse comments made about those who would seek to uphold the very values that Australian Diggers have fought for in various military conflicts—the right to freedom of speech, the right to protest and the very important element and basis of democracy in our pluralistic society of allowing people to protest when they want to. I am disappointed that the honourable member misrepresented the Trades and Labour Council of Victoria, because its protest on 11 November 2003 was against the Federal Government's industrial relations policy and its proposed changes to Medicare and higher eduction.
Despite what people may think of the Victorian Trades and Labour Council—and I may not be its greatest fan, for a number of reasons—the council chose that day because it was aware of the day's historical significance and thought it an appropriate occasion on which to exercise its freedom of speech and protest. The Victorian Trades and Labour Council protestors stopped their activity and fell silent in respect for Remembrance Day. That was an appropriate way to conduct themselves. To use the fact that they chose that day as an excuse to condemn them for exercising their right to freedom of speech, their right to express their views, and to hold the protest, I find disturbing and sad. I think that marred what was otherwise a very good contribution by the Hon. Charlie Lynn. It disappoints me that a member with such a deep and intimate understanding of the sacrifices that people make to defend this country, to defend democracy, and to defend freedom of speech would condemn people who choose to exercise their right to freedom of speech.
Of course, others in this place will take any opportunity to get stuck into the trade union movement, for their own political motives and for reasons that have nothing at all to do with Remembrance Day. The real point about the Remembrance Day rally was that it indicated the nature of the conflict-ridden environment of Victoria's industrial relations system—a point that seems to have been missed in this debate so far. The protest was not planned. It was provoked by the industrial relations climate that the Federal Government has generated. That same industrial relations system that the Federal Government is busy selling to the rest of Australia is the template for a unitary system of industrial relations today.
It is very interesting to examine the Federal system and how it has operated in Victoria. There, it has operated as a monopoly since Premier Kennett gave up the State system. According to the latest available data for the September quarter of 2004, Victoria accounted for 84 per cent of Australia's working days lost in disputes lasting five days or more. That is an awfully large proportion of those disputes. In comparison, no working days were lost in New South Wales in such long-running disputes. In the same period in the construction industry, New South Wales accounts for only 5 per cent of the nation's working days lost, compared with Victoria's 36 per cent. So there are fundamental flaws in the industrial relations system. I believe the trade union movement has every right to stand up, exercise its freedom of speech and protest and complain about the way the industrial system operates in Victoria. It is a warning to the rest of the country about the future of industrial relations in this nation if we allow the Federal Government to continue with its crazy plan to have a unitary system controlling all industrial relations in our nation.
I say to the Hon. Charlie Lynn that he should brace himself for more protests. It is unfortunate if he finds that reprehensible. But there will be more protests, because if what happened in Victoria is repeated in all States and Territories, massive divisions will be created throughout the country. I certainly do not wish to see industrial protests overshadowing traditional marks of respect, but I believe every person has a fundamental right to freedom of expression, within normal bounds, and the right to speak out and protest. That is the very reason we protect our democracy. It is why people make the ultimate sacrifice to protect democracy. It greatly concerns me that the Federal Government continues with its pursuit of a unitary industrial relations system based on adversarial and unbalanced principles, a matter that has been the cause of industrial mayhem within Victoria.
So I say to the House that, while I appreciate the contributions of the members who have spoken so far—and I find the discussion about the importance of marking days of remembrance and important points in our history to be very valuable to our society—I am very disappointed that this event has become an excuse to condemn the Victorian Trades and Labor Council, when all it was doing was conducting a peaceful protest, in accordance with the law, and exercising that absolutely basic element of any democratic society: freedom of speech.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.57 p.m.]: I support and congratulate the Hon. Charlie Lynn on moving this motion. It raises a very important issue: unions protesting on days that are held very close to the hearts of so many people in this country, such as Anzac Day, Remembrance Day, Long Tan Day and Kokoda Day, as well as days mentioned by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes—Christmas Day and Good Friday. It is totally inappropriate for unions to try to score cheap political points by holding protests on such days, which have been held so special by so many for so long.
War touches all of us. I have never served in a theatre of war, but my grandfather certainly did. He served in the First World War, in which he was seriously injured when shrapnel removed the front of his skull. A steel plate was inserted over the part of the skull above his eyes. This resulted in some very serious disabilities for him in his later life: the slightest knock to the forehead would injure him and render him unconscious. He died prematurely as a result of those war injuries—as many others have died prematurely from the injuries they received in a theatre of war.
The father of a friend of mine was a rear gunner in a Lancaster during the war. One day when they were getting ready for a raid he had an earache and the doctor would not let him take his position as the tail gunner in the Lancaster. That day his aircraft was shot down and all the crew were killed. That man never forgave himself for not taking his position in the aircraft that day, and he always felt guilty about letting down his mates, despite the fact that he lived for another 50 or 60 years. We can only imagine what Anzac Day and Remembrance Day meant to him. They were so special and important to him that he often found it difficult to enjoy them because they brought back so many bad memories.
Those who returned from the war and the thousands who, unfortunately, did not have that opportunity are responsible for the freedoms we enjoy today. As the Hon. Eric Roozendaal said, the unions also claim to have achieved certain freedoms for the workers of Australia, which may be so. But the unions have their special days, such as Labour Day in New South Wales and other days around the country, to mark their contributions to achieving the workplace freedoms our workers now enjoy. But how would the unions feel if a protest rally that was contrary to their objectives and ideals were held on one of their special days? They would not like it.
The Hon. David Oldfield: The butchers' picnic.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The Hon. David Oldfield reminds us of the butchers' picnic. Likewise our veterans do not appreciate political protests on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, which are apolitical days. War is not about politics. On the recent anniversary of the Eureka Stockade the unions stated that it was a landmark event in defining the Australian way. Perhaps it did contribute to the definition of what we now refer to as "the Australian way", but I was annoyed and insulted by the unions' claim that the Eureka Stockade was as important in Australia's history as Gallipoli and Anzac Day. The claim is an insult to our returned veterans and the memory of those who lost their lives. As important as the Eureka Stockade was to the definition and history of Australia, it certainly is not as important as Anzac Day. Even though I never served in a theatre of war my grandfather certainly did and my father trained with the air force, but the war finished before he took up active duty. He did not see overseas duty. Anzac Day always has been important to our family.
As the Hon. Charlie Lynn pointed out, we must educate our young people about the importance of these days of remembrance. When I was a school student I had the great honour of serving in the school cadets for five years. Anzac Day was our main day of presentation. We formed a guard of honour on the cenotaph for the Anzac Day service. I participated in the Anzac Day service for four years. It gave me a great deal of satisfaction, but it always brought tears to my eyes as I tried to grasp the sorts of things that our veterans must have been through. This year I will travel to Hellfire Pass on the Burma Railway to participate in the dawn service on Anzac Day. I am very much looking forward to it. I understand it is an extremely moving ceremony and is regarded as second only to the Gallipoli service. Some 12,000 Australians died on the Burma Railway and many more died prematurely soon after they got home as a result of war-related injuries. I congratulate the Hon. Charlie Lynn on moving the motion. It is an important matter that deserves the full support of the House.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.05 p.m.]: I join with other members in congratulating the Hon. Charlie Lynn on his outstanding contribution to the debate. His account of what happened to men and women in the service of our country who made many personal sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, was very moving. It is incredibly distressing to think that any Australian would let down those men and women who fought for us overseas. The Hon. Charlie Lynn's experience has enabled him to relate their experiences to the House. For my family, and probably for all Australian families, Remembrance Day has always been a day that is above politics. That is what the Hon. Charlie Lynn's motion is all about. Of the 365 days in a year only a handful of days are dedicated to these men and women. It seems so little to ask that they be above politics.
Our veterans are inclusive in their commemorations. They honour each other and all soldiers around the world. With a comradeship that only soldiers can experience, the Gallipoli commemorations acknowledge the losses the Turks sustained during that campaign. It is a day about the veterans and ordinary soldiering. It is an absolute tragedy to think that somebody would stain that day with a political campaign. The mentality of the union movement in identifying vulnerabilities and cheap and easy ways of making an impact with their protests has become notorious in this country. There have been many acts of vandalism and selfishness, but the incidences highlighted by the Hon. Charlie Lynn involving our soldiers fighting overseas surely are the worst. It is no secret that poor behaviour by trade unions has been frustrating for members on this side of the House throughout our history. Of particular abhorrence is the willingness of unions to target innocent bystanders to make a political point. One example is secondary boycotts.
The example given by the Hon. Charlie Lynn of interference with the personal mail of our soldiers fighting in Vietnam was particularly sickening. I have heard some pretty shocking examples of their handiwork, but I had not been aware of that union campaign, which certainly was a new low for me. I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn for drawing it to the attention of the House. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal defended this type of behaviour by saying that protest is somehow appropriate to demonstrate the freedoms we have in this country and that it is appropriate to demonstrate that freedom on those days.
The Hon. Rick Colless: He didn't hang around in the Chamber to hear the criticism.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: As the Hon. Rick Colless said, he did not hang around to hear criticism on that point. To say that the actions of the unions on Remembrance Day is somehow consistent, let alone part of the celebration of Remembrance Day, is an extraordinary twist that cannot be supported by any member of the House. I can only assume it is an attempt by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal to valiantly defend what is, clearly, indefensible. The labour movement in this country is very proud of its history. Many books have been written by the labour movement glorifying its history, and I have read many of them. I studied labour history at the University of Sydney. In fact, I won an award in my class for labour history, which is very interesting and very detailed; it certainly is extremely well documented.
I have visited Trades Hall, the head office of the Labor Council, and I have seen the banners, which are marvellous and have been admirably preserved. The time and effort that goes into preserving that history is commendable because it is part of our nation's history. That part of our history is something that I believe all sides of politics greatly respect, but it is particularly irksome when the labour movement shows disrespect for everybody else's history.
Many veterans are former unionists who are very proud and protective of their own history and achievements. Most important, they are very proud of those who made the ultimate sacrifice—Australians who remain forever young. Their memory is sacred to us all, but it is particularly sacred to their comrades, their fellow soldiers. The few days that are set aside each year to commemorate their sacrifice should be regarded as sacred by everybody, irrespective of politics, and the trade union movement should be no exception.
I strongly support the Hon. Charlie Lynn's suggestion that at least three days should be sacrosanct. I believe that we must respect the diggers, and that even the labour movement must respect the diggers. As I have said, I am sure that many members of the labour movement were appalled and embarrassed by the behaviour of the Victorian Trades Hall Council in Melbourne on Remembrance Day in 2003. In conclusion, I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn for moving a very important and significant motion. I strongly support the motion.
The Hon. IAN WEST [4.11 p.m.]: I am pleased to participate in this debate. I state for the record that as a trade unionist and as the grandson, son and brother of people who have served their country, I believe that Remembrance Day is a very sacred day for all Australians. In no way would I want to be disrespectful to that most important day. My grandfather was in the Light Horse Brigade and served in the Middle East in 1915. My father travelled from Kenebri all the way to Rushcutters Bay to join the Navy as S5029. He served on the Lookout, the Watcher and HMAS Shropshire, which accepted the surrender of the Japanese in Tokyo Bay. He also served on two other ships in Port Moresby, New Guinea and Darwin. My brother, Alan, was an engineer who was conscripted at 20 years of age to serve in the Vietnam War. His service in 1968 was to be for 12 months, but he ended up back in Sydney after 9 months, injured and certainly affected by his experience in Vietnam. He fought in Vietnam because the government of the day decided that Australia should be involved in a country that had a very long history of struggle against oppressors of the freedom of its citizens.
I assure this House that there is no way that I could condone anybody denigrating Remembrance Day. I am advised that at 11.00 a.m. on 11 November 2003 the workers in Victoria stopped to pay respect to and remember the fallen—their comrades, who had fallen in many wars from the 1850s onwards. Most of those who fell were workers, members of trade unions, who duly struggled for fairness and equity in raising their families. When they returned from World War II they organised RSL clubs. The workers, the people who had been part of the factory fodder and who earlier had been part of the cannon fodder, returned to this great country and tried to make a life for themselves and their families. They started up RSL clubs from tin sheds at the back of Smithfield and other places in the western suburbs. They got their friends together and mortgaged their houses. That is how RSL clubs began.
During the day these workers were employed in factories, and they were members of trade unions. They fought for fair and just wages and over many years met in RSL clubs. My father-in-law spent many years building up an RSL club from a tin shed near Smithfield and he mortgaged his house to do so. He now looks at its great facade and thinks, "It ain't what it used to be", and that RSL clubs are not what they used to be. Nevertheless, I make it quite clear in this House that I will not accept any suggestion that the trade union movement is anything but respectful to its fallen comrades.
Trade unions are organisations that represent those who went away to represent their country in theatres of war, good and bad. Boy, we fought some bad wars. We fought a couple of wars that we had to fight, but no-one should ever denigrate the efforts of the cannon fodder and the factory fodder—union representatives and union members. In 2003 some members of trade unions were involved in a struggle and decided to take action, but at the appropriate time, the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, they stopped to pay tribute.
I can only reiterate that I am a committed trade unionist but that I have the greatest respect for the men and women of this country who fought and died, those who were crippled, those who were not the same when they returned as when they went away, and those who returned and remembered their experience but went about their lives happily. I pay respect also to those who returned and do not want to remember what happened to them—those who are quite happy when the eleventh day of the eleventh month has gone and they can spend the next 364 days pretending that it never happened and hoping it never happens again.
Humans being what they are, each generation spews up the same good, bad and ugly, and we continue to go through the same good, bad and ugly activities and events in the great complexity of human affairs. But it is wrong for members of this House to try to demonise some individuals, to make out that they are the root of all evil and that those who are attempting to struggle to achieve what they see is right and just are somehow disrespectful. Let me say to honourable members that anyone who was being disrespectful in Melbourne on 11 November 2003 would have been completely and utterly disowned by the trade union movement.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.20 p.m.]: I speak against the motion. I have listened carefully—in the Chamber and in my office—to all the contributions made to the debate. A very great distinction has to be drawn between people who were having—as the Victorian Trades Hall Council was having—a demonstration on Remembrance Day, who actually took time out to observe a minute's silence at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, and people having a demonstration that actually interrupted other people's commemoration of Remembrance Day. The Victorian Trades Hall Council did not march on the cenotaph in Melbourne, it did not disrupt other events that were being held that day; it was having its own demonstration during which it took a break to commemorate Remembrance Day.
The people at the demonstration were not showing disrespect to the fallen or to other people commemorating Remembrance Day. They were having a demonstration but they took time out to acknowledge Remembrance Day. That was not recognised by many people in their contributions to this debate. Had the demonstrators stormed the cenotaph on Remembrance Day and disrupted the formal commemoration service I would not stand up here today and defend their actions. But they did not do that. For that reason I think that in some way the motion is ill founded. I have no disagreement at all with the comments members from both sides made about the respect that we owe to people who served in the Australian armed forces and who fought to protect our country, our way of life, our democracy and our right to freedom of speech. We should be able to separate the two issues of respect for people who have served Australia and the rights of people to undertake activities other than commemoration ceremonies on Remembrance Day.
My family has a long history of respecting service in the armed forces. A great uncle was killed in the First World War, and is buried in the Commonwealth war graves at Jericho. My maternal grandfather was affected by mustard gas in the First World War, which caused him to pass away at an early age, so I never got to meet him. My paternal grandfather served in the Royal Australian Navy in World War II and my father served in the Royal Australian Navy in the Korean War and the Vietnam war. So both sides of my family are used to commemorating war service and participating in all sorts of memorial services. As children my brother and I were often taken to different commemoration ceremonies—Anzac Day, memorial day, commemorations of particular battles. We learnt very early to stand still, bow our heads, not talk and not fidget during the services, particularly not when people were observing a minute's silence. This is ingrained in Australian culture.
The Hon. Ian West talked about RSL clubs. When I used to go to the dining room of the local RSL club with my parents for that special night out everybody knew that at nine o'clock the lights would be dimmed, the red lamps would come on and the ode would be recited. This is deeply ingrained in Australian culture and an organisation such as the Victorian Trades Hall Council would not treat the matter lightly. We have heard a lot of comment today about other issues to do with vandalism of war memorials. Speakers are right when they say that many children these days are not taught the value of the sacrifice made by people who are commemorated by the war memorials. I concur with the comments of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about the Premier's emphasis on young children in schools learning about the First World War and the contribution of the Australian forces at Gallipoli.
My children are not long out of primary school. When they did an assignment on Gallipoli they found it handy that my father had his vast library of reference books on the first and second world wars. They came to have a good understanding of what happened. My father goes out to many youth clubs, schools and other organisations and talks to children about what happened in the first and second world wars and in particular about naval history. Now that he has retired it has become his pastime. I strongly believe that we could do more to strengthen the understanding of people who come to this country from countries where there has not necessarily been a similar level of commitment and support for the armed services.
In some countries the armed services have been seen as a draconian force repressing the freedoms of the people. We could do more to educate immigrants about how Australian society commemorates people who, because of war service, have given their lives, their health and their capacity to contribute fully in society. When considering this debate we have to be mindful to separate the two issues. I do not think anyone in the Chamber at the moment would object to commemorating the service that has been given by members of the Australian armed forces in all the conflicts Australia has been involved in, probably going back to the Boer War, the Crimean War and other conflicts.
We should draw a line between, on the one hand, having respect for the war dead and commemorating the service that they gave to this country and, on the other hand, recognising that an organisation such as the Victorian Trades Hall Council, when it had a demonstration on Remembrance Day 2003, took time out to commemorate with a minute's silence and did not interfere with anyone else's commemoration of Remembrance Day 2003. They are two separate issues. If the motion were amended to delete the condemnation of the Victorian Trades Hall Council I would have no hesitation in supporting it. That would be a productive way to go. Using this motion as a way to take a cheap shot at the union movement is not really the most productive way to advance the debate.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [4.28 p.m.]: First I commend the Hon. Ian West. We have had our differences in the past on various things but I acknowledge that he spoke passionately and sincerely. I am pleased to find that his family has a military background. I also commend the Hon. Charlie Lynn, who as far as I am aware is the only member from either House of this Parliament who is actually a combat veteran or, for that matter, a returned soldier. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong. It is unfortunate that Labor dumped its only returned soldier just before the last election and replaced him with somebody else at a preselection.
We are fortunate to have the Hon. Charlie Lynn in this Chamber. He is the most appropriate person to have moved a motion such as this because he is the only person in this Parliament who, to coin a phrase, has been where the metal meets the meat. I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn for what he has done. During the course of debate one could be forgiven for believing that, to a degree, unionists have gone off to all the wars, won them, and then come back and built Australia. Statistically, the vast majority of people who volunteered and went off to war were not unionists or members of trade unions. Proportionately, fewer unionists went to war than did non-unionists per capita. That is something that should be understood.
It should also be understood that the vast majority who were not unionists came back and built this country. It would be good if Labor members were able to join us in supporting this most worthy motion and carrying that message to unionists. I learned only recently—and I am sorry that I was naive enough to learn this only recently—that anyone wishing to become a candidate for the Labor Party has to be a member of a union, which I find most discriminatory. That is an appalling situation. It is almost like saying, "We represent only one group of people." One has to be a member of a union to become a candidate for the Labor Party.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: These are all perceptions. You had to be a Catholic too, or you had to be Irish.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: Is the Hon. Henry Tsang a Catholic? Is he an Irish Catholic?
The Hon. Henry Tsang: I am Irish and a unionist to boot!
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: That is what the unions should be given: the boot.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: I get fined every time I go into the Rotary club for having anything to do with the Irish. I am an honorary Irish person.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I acknowledge the right for all people to protest.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: This is creating a perception.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I acknowledged the earlier interjection of the Hon. Henry Tsang and it will be included in Hansard, so the honourable member should be quiet. I acknowledge the right of all people to protest, but there is time and a place. I, like the Hon. Charlie Lynn, believe that such days of commemoration, be it Anzac Day, Remembrance Day or Long Tan Day, are not suitable days for protest. Such protests are an affront to those who deserve our respect. I think they deserve our respect more than any other Australians. I am sure that the Hon. Charlie Lynn would agree that we could also note, for example, many other days. For 365 days of the year we could note the Battle of Kapyong or the Battle of the Coral Sea. For 365 days a year—and 366 in a leap year—we could go through Australian military history and find a day on which we should be grateful. But to ask for only three days I think is magnanimous to the nth degree.
I, like the Hon. Ian West, could point out a few things about my family. I am the only male member of my family who is not a combat veteran. Fortunately, some of them are still alive. Three of my great uncles served in World War I. One was killed, one was wounded and one returned unhurt. In World War II my uncle was a member of the 2/16th Battalion of the 7th Division—a unit with which I am sure the Hon. Charlie Lynn is familiar. My great-uncle, who unfortunately was in the 8th Division, was captured in Singapore and died in Japan as a prisoner of war. My father, who was in the original No. 2 Squadron, was twice decorated for bravery, including an American unit citation, which was very rare in World War II. Unfortunately, after 77 combat missions he was ultimately shot down and captured by the Japanese, where he enjoyed the hospitality of Asian food for a short period. However, I am afraid that for prisoners there was not much of it to go around.
My brother was a Vietnam veteran—a regular who volunteered. These days some might say that a person was foolish to volunteer for Vietnam, but I would suggest that that is not the case. It was a right and something to be respected, not only then but also now. Even in recent times with the controversy about the 450 troops that are about depart for Iraq, the military made it quite clear that it would be having to hold people back, that it would be swamped with military personnel willing to go because they, more than any of us, understand—as did their forebears who fought—their duty and responsibility to this country. In this case, we face the terrible threat of terrorism—a masked enemy that is often difficult to find, though at times we can root it out by its smell. I often feel that I live in the shadow of the people in my family—those who are now in Iraq and those who fought in all the wars in which Australia participated out of necessity.
If there were only one fight in which I could be involved it would certainly always be the fight to uphold their memory. The Victorian Trades Hall Council had a choice about when and where to protest. It owes that opportunity of choice to the Australians we commemorate on Remembrance Day, yet it chose not to honour but to affront that memory. The Hon. Charlie Lynn is right to remind us of union action, or perhaps reaction, during World War II. Frankly, the scum involved at that time should have been tried for treason.
The Hon. Charlie Lynne: Indeed, they should have been.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: They should have been. Those unionists left our boys to die unassisted in New Guinea whilst they were home safe and sound hard at work, not for our troops but aiding the Japanese. Unions must improve their record in relation to such actions. Their record of assault on Australian's fighting men and women is disgraceful. Supporting this motion would have been an important step forward, at least by union members in this House, in showing appropriate respect. Alas, once again, all decent Australians have been let down.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [4.36 p.m.]: I echo the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Charlie Lynn and I support his motion. Remembrance Day, like Anzac Day, has a special place in the history of our nation. It is a special sacred day to most Australians. Many Australians feel that day personally having lost family, friends and relatives in one of the conflicts in which our nation has been involved. Remembrance Day is a day of deep meaning to them. The overwhelming majority of trade unionists are good Australians. They are also good and decent people. They are patriotic Australians. They also fought for Australia in past conflicts. They do not want to see the desecration of our war memorials and our days of commemoration, but what the Victorian Trades Hall Council did cannot be defended.
I say to the Hon. Eric Roozendaal that freedom of expression is not in doubt. There are 350 days and more in the rest of the year when freedom of expression could have been exercised. I would like to give the Victorian Trades Hall Council the benefit of the doubt. I would like to think that it did not think it through. I would like to think that having thought it through it now regrets what it did. The truth is that it was wrong, unwise and unfeeling. If we agree to this motion it may help to avoid such an incident in the future and point out to us all that repercussions can flow from our actions.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [4.38 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn for giving me an opportunity to contribute in debate on this subject this afternoon. I will not try to match the Hon. David Oldfield by referring to family members who participated in wars, but I wish to comment briefly on an object that I have with me, which is something I treasure. I have a whistle that was made by J. Hudson and Company, Birmingham, in 1916. For the benefit of honourable members who can see this whistle, it belonged to my grandfather as a very junior, non-commissioned officer on the Western Front in France. It was his role to blow this whistle and basically send hundreds and hundreds of people to their deaths. They had to go up over the trenches and fight the Germans in an unbelievably bloody and pointless war. Nevertheless, all those Australians who responded to this whistle did so believing that it was their patriotic duty to their country.
For Australia, the Great War was the most costly of all the conflicts in which we have fought. Some 300,000 men enlisted from a population of fewer than 5 million and more than 60,000 were killed. That is a horrific statistic. Some 156,000 were wounded, gassed—as my grandfather was—or taken prisoner. It was a terrible war. The carnage ended on Remembrance Day and ever since we have commemorated on that day the pointlessness of that conflict and the sacrifices that Australian and others made during that war. Remembrance Day is observed throughout the Commonwealth.
The debate this afternoon underlines the importance of sensitivity in discussing these subjects. No member in the House could have failed to be moved by the Hon. Charlie Lynn's description of the way in which Vietnam veterans were treated upon their return to Australia. Some of our countrymen behaved absolutely disgracefully towards people who, at the end of the day, simply did their duty and respected the decision of the elected government to engage in a conflict that it believed to be in our national interests. I think many Australians shared that view at the time. In about 1990—I cannot remember the exact year—when I was State President of the Young Liberal Movement there was a march for returned Vietnam veterans.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: It was 1987.
The Hon. DON HARWIN: I was policy vice-president then. Members of the Young Liberal Movement went to the march carrying a banner, which read, "Young Liberals say welcome". It was a tremendously moving day when all the Vietnam vets finally marched at home.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: It was the welcome home parade. Thirteen years late.
The Hon. DON HARWIN: Yes, it was long overdue and certainly extremely worthwhile. I recall that a great many soldiers from the South Vietnamese army also marched on that occasion, which was an important and moving part of the parade. We must be sensitive, as the Vietnam episode proved decisively. I do not think any of us would look back on those events and say the right thing was done. On days such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day we remember the tremendous sacrifices that people have made for our country. I am grateful for this opportunity to put some brief remarks on the record this afternoon. I commend all honourable members who have contributed to this debate.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.43 p.m.]: This is a most important motion—the Hon. Charlie Lynn perhaps did not appreciate just how important when he moved it. I congratulate him on moving this motion as it says much about the type of society we are and want to be. At all times we must be proud of and grateful to those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The Hon. Charlie Lynn made that clear in his contribution. We do this rarely through the year. Anzac Day has particular significance for Australians and Remembrance Day commemorates the sacrifice of allied forces in the First World War. I note that since 1918 many countries have observed Remembrance Day at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month. Such commemorations give us an opportunity to reflect. Earlier today an honourable member said that the sacrifices made by Australians in war have ensured our freedoms—freedom of speech and freedom of action. We must always defend those freedoms. But one must never exercise freedom without responsibility.
As I reflect upon the action of the Victorian Trades Hall Council in 2003, I cannot help but think that it was not a simple protest by unionists but a deliberate act intended to draw attention to them and their cause. We have a right to condemn them for that deliberate action. We must stand up at all times for our freedoms, including the freedom to protest, but we ask the unions to respect the importance and the role of Remembrance Day in our society. All honourable members have made genuine contributions to this debate and brought their own perspectives to this issue. We must remember that this is not a "them" and "us" debate. Coalition members certainly intend this motion to be not an attack on unions and union members but a specific action against the Victorian Trades Hall Council. We can all reflect on the sacrifices of trade unionists and others during time of war.
I find these sorts of debates most interesting. Two weeks ago my family gathered to celebrate and recall the life of my recently deceased father-in-law in a memorial service at Newcastle cathedral. He served in the air force. He was based in England and flew missions over Europe. We reflected on my father-in-law's contribution to the war effort, although he was most unwilling to talk about it during his lifetime. Although my father would never talk about it, I believe Anzac Day was one of the most difficult days for our family. In 1938 while my father was in training his commanding officer received a letter with a BHP letterhead suggesting that my father leave the training facility and return to BHP.
At the time my father, who was in his mid twenties, was the works accountant for BHP Newcastle. He was prevented from going to war: it was judged that he had an important role to play defending Australia in Australia. I think he never got over that. My father wanted to serve his country but others decided differently. He could never talk about it and he certainly had a difficult time on Anzac Day when he reflected on the sacrifices of people he knew. We come to this issue from different perspectives but we all respect those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I believe today we have a right to condemn the Victorian Trades Hall Council for taking a day that is respected enormously by all Australians—as we have illustrated in this debate—and, by its actions, sullying the reputation of unionists who made the ultimate sacrifice for us all.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE [4.48 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Charlie Lynn and thank him not only for moving this motion but for his service to his country. We should all be proud to get to our feet and say, "Thanks, Charlie." I am lucky not to have been particularly touched by war. I was never called to front up and serve my country. However, I would be the first to put my hand up if I had to. My family has been touched by war service, as have most Australian families. A number of my great-uncles and cousins were involved in the First World War—some of them did not come back and one came back without a leg. At my age I did not have much of an opportunity to interact with them, but I respect and am grateful for their contributions.
I believe that it is appropriate today to condemn the Victorian Trades Hall Council for conducting a protest rally on Remembrance Day. I do not say that lightly. One of my colleagues indicated that he thought the Victorian Trades Hall Council may have simply been mistaken—and I hope it has realised it was mistaken. Many unionists are good people. I have no doubt about that and I support everyone who has made that comment. What the Victorian Trades Hall Council did on that day cannot be excused by suggestions that it allowed other people to properly observe Remembrance Day or, indeed, that some of the protesters properly observed Remembrance Day. We cannot accept the militant extremism that was represented by that group. This debate highlights the difference between the Liberals-Nationals and the union-dominated Australian Labor Party. The Liberals and our colleagues from The Nationals respect previous generations and work hard to ensure that we provide for future generations, provide opportunities and provide the infrastructure that they need.
I was surprised by the comments of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal in the debate. He was wrong to try to characterise the actions on Remembrance Day by this group as something that was an exercise of their right to free speech. I defend very hard—but I am not sure whether I would do so to the death—the rights we have gained to have free speech and freedom. But, as the Hon. Patricia Forsythe pointed out, with those rights come responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is not to protest on a day such as Remembrance Day. I spent much of my life in Greenacre and Bankstown. I have had a great deal of experience with many good workers. My first job, at 14 years of age, was as a sales assistant in the old G. J. Coles at Bankstown. I had many jobs when I was a student—including in security and in the kitchens of Qantas—and I knew lots of good workers and good unionists. Those people would have been outraged at the prospect of people protesting on Remembrance Day. The average Australian would feel that it is completely out of place to protest on a day such as Remembrance Day.
I was surprised to hear the Hon. Eric Roozendaal sprout his partisan agenda in relation to industrial reform. I will respond to that briefly, without diverting the debate, by pointing out to the Hon. Eric Roozendaal comments made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank in his appearance before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration on 18 February. It is important, it is relevant and it responds to the comments of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal. The Governor of the Reserve Bank pointed out that one of the key reasons that the inflation rate in Australia has not changed is that changes in wage-setting arrangements have meant that pressure in labour markets do not feed as quickly as previously into wage inflation. He said the main changes have been the decentralisation of wage setting via enterprise bargaining and the lengthening of contracts out to two, three or sometime four years. The independent Governor of the Reserve Bank pointed out the importance of industrial reform to achieving the inflation result in Australia.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, I ask you draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that speakers must not move away from the important motion before the House—the protest rally that was held in Melbourne on Remembrance Day 2003.
The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: It is clear that the Hon. Greg Pearce is replying at length to substantive points made by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal in his contribution to the debate. Therefore, he is quite in order. If the Hon. Eric Roozendaal was in order to make the comments, it is certainly in order for the Hon. Greg Pearce to reply to them.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: As I a result of this debate I now know that the Hon. Henry Tsang is an Irishman. However, his colleague the Hon. Eric Roozendaal made those comments. We can excuse the Hon. Eric Roozendaal for doing so because he is a new member. As everyone on our side knows, this is his first real job. He has never had a real job in the work force. He is still learning his new role.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will confine his remarks to speaking to the point of order.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Hon. Eric Roozendaal made those comments during the debate, and it is quite appropriate for us to respond to them.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: I am surprised that the Hon. Henry Tsang has taken this point of order. When the Hon. Eric Roozendaal made those comments no-one took a point of order against him—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: He is only new. We let him go.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: He is new. We did not take a point of order because of the seriousness of this debate. If people were prepared to let him have his say, it is only appropriate that I respond to his comments, which is what I was doing.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I realise that reference has been made to this matter by others in the debate but I ask the Hon. Greg Pearce to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: If you will permit me, Madam Deputy-President, I want to finish on that point because I was only half way through it. I want to respond briefly to what the Hon. Eric Roozendaal said. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Macfarlane, at the hearing before the House of Representatives committee was talking about the challenges for Australia, which are relevant when we are talking about the contribution made by many of our forebears and some of our colleagues to the freedom and good condition of this country. Mr Macfarlane said that one of the issues is productivity. He said:
We have done pretty well in terms of increasing productivity over the nineties. It's slowing down a bit at the moment.
Then he said:
The biggest thing in this area is industrial relations reform. There must be a lot of things that still can be done. From my own experience in the Reserve Bank, as we have changed things and reduced our size and, I think, increased our productivity enormously, one of the things that stood out was that there were a lot of a benefits and rules which were of some benefit to employees—but a very small benefit—but were extremely costly to the employer, which means that there is a classic opportunity for a win-win situation as these things are resolved.
In the spirit of this debate, when we are giving credit to and praising the contribution of our forebears and some of our colleagues, it would be best to look at the need for industrial relations reform in this country not as something on which to score political points but as something that should be a win-win opportunity for everybody. I believe that the appropriate response of the House today is to condemn the Victorian Trades Hall Council for holding its protest rally on Remembrance Day. Again I say that I do not believe the majority of good, hard-working union officials would support the sort of extremist, militant action—
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.