Volunteer Defence Service Medal

Doorstop Interview

Transcript - Sydney - 11 July 2004

E & OE (Corrected version)

LATHAM:         We are here today to present Labor’s policy to create a Volunteer Defence Service Medal to recognise volunteers who served our military well for a period of over three years. This would honour the service of 650,000 Australians who volunteered through the Regular or Reserve Forces of the military to help the defence of our country. It is an important initiative because the medal responds to the campaign by the Defence Reserve Association as recognition of volunteers, the people who step forward, either through the Regular or Reserve Forces, to protect and defend Australia. This sort of recognition also plays an important role in encouraging more volunteers for the future. We know we live in an uncertain world. We know we need to do such as we can to defend Australia, and honouring and encouraging more voluntary service – people who step forward as volunteers – is a very important role for a Federal Labor Government for the future.

The current Government has what we regard as very restrictive medal criteria where people would need to serve more than six years in this voluntary capacity before they would be honoured. We think six years is too long, too restrictive. It is out of line with other medals and the way in which they are awarded. Three years is a more realistic and effective period so, for some 350,000 people in the Regular Forces and 300,000 in the Reserves, they would be eligible under the Labor plan – that is a total of 650,000; 250,000 more than the proposal that comes from Minister Brough and the Howard Government.

I want to pay tribute in particular to the Defence Reserve Association, led by Matt Walsh, for their campaign to ensure that in the future we’ve got Australians who step forward and volunteer in the capacity for the defence of Australia. Their campaign, which started in my own constituency here at Werriwa, and the lodging of a petition in the Parliament has been very effective and I thank them for their work and, in Government, look forward to working with them further to ensure that the Defence Reserve Association is encouraged, and we’ve got effective medals of recognition in place for people who perform these services as volunteers and we keep Australia’s defence as strong as we can for the future.

I am here today with Graham Edwards our parliamentary secretary who has been working on this proposal and liaising with the Defence Reserve Association so I would like to ask Graham to say a few words in addition to my comments.

EDWARDS:         Thanks very much, Mark. Mark, I would just say thanks very much for your personal support to this important recognition for medals for the Australian Defence Force. The medal is, indeed, a very important one. I want to compliment the Defence Reserve Association and the new medal group for their very strong support for this medal. I also want to compliment the National Servicemen’s Association who have got behind their volunteer colleagues, members of the Regular Defence Forces, Reserve or full time, and thank them for their support for this important recognition.      

LATHAM:         Okay – am happy to answer any questions.

JOURNALIST:     Mr Latham, is this a new medal or is this an extension of the current scheme that will be available under the Howard Government?

LATHAM:         It is Labor’s new medal – it is Labor’s approach, the Volunteer Defence Service Medal, and it comes with a more realistic and effective eligibility period of three years preferred to the Howard Government’s six years. So the Howard Government would have a medal that goes to 400,000 Australians who volunteered. We will be covering 650,000 Australians who volunteer, recognising that if you serve your country for a three-year period that is a very significant service for which Australia must be grateful. A Federal Labor Government will show its gratitude with this new medal that begins in 2005.

JOURNALIST:     On another issue, the chance that the case against Willie Brigitte could fall over because of the extradition not being carried out legally. Does that concern you?

LATHAM:         It is a major problem that there have problems on the Brigitte case at both ends – both in Australia and France. We can't afford this in the war against terror; we’ve got to get it right. I urge the authorities to learn from the mistakes that have been made in this particular matter and fix them up for the future. We can't afford errors in the war against terror. It is about the security of the Australian people; it is about keeping our nation safe and we need the top level performance and an urgent review of what went wrong in this particular case at both ends to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

JOURNALIST:      We’ve seen a report today on Peter Garrett, the Channel 9 profile of him. Was Laurie Brereton pushed out of his seat to make way for Peter Garrett?

LATHAM:         No, not at all. Mr Brereton decided to retire from politics after a long period of service going back, I think, to 1971. We are talking about someone who has been in the Parliament, State and Federal, over 30 years. He is entitled to make his own timetable for retirement and that is exactly what Laurie did. Laurie told me that he was planning to retire and that was the first I knew of it.

JOURNALIST:     It was mentioned before that Graham Richardson [inaudible] about the environment portfolio. Have you got anyone’s name on it?

LATHAM:         Kelvin Thomson is the shadow minister for environment, and he will make a very fine environment minister in a Federal Labor Government. That is the fact of the matter and there shouldn’t be any speculation at all: that is what is going to happen.

JOURNALIST:     It has been reported that your British counterpart, Tony Blair, contemplated resigning [inaudible] after the Iraq war and was only talked out of it by Cabinet colleagues. Does that concern you in the main [inaudible]?

LATHAM:         I’m more concerned by the report of the American Senate highlighting all the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war. I think it is time for Mr Howard in this country to acknowledge that no weapons of mass destruction have been found and he took Australia to war for a purpose that wasn’t true – one of the worst things that can happen in terms of Federal Government decision making. With regard to Mr Blair, you would have seen, through the course of the past week that I think we should stick to our democracy. That is what I plan to do in the Australian election year. Those matters which you mentioned earlier are for the British Labour Party, the British Government and the British people to sort out.

JOURNALIST:      Do you think that the Government was too eager to believe the [inaudible] intelligence?

LATHAM:         There is no doubt about it; the Government said that we are going to war to find weapons of mass destruction and it turns out they didn’t exist. Of all the decisions the Government can make, there is nothing worse than going to war for a purpose that wasn’t true. Mr Howard needs to fess up to the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. We need a broader and more effective inquiry into the pre-war intelligence in this country. Again, let’s learn from these errors and ensure they don’t happen in the future.

JOURNALIST:     Peter Costello has challenged Simon Crean to a televised debate [inaudible] economic policies and monetary matters. Would you be supportive of that?

LATHAM:         I think that happens every election campaign. I think it happened last time and Simon Crean tied him up so we look forward to that happening again.

JOURNALIST:     Do you think Simon Crean is maybe the weak link in [inaudible] Labor Party policies?

LATHAM:         In the last campaign it was Peter Costello fumbling around on the sale of Telstra that was the weak link for the Government. The real worry in the coming campaign, the biggest risk for people to take, is that if they vote for Mr Howard they are going to end up with Prime Minister Peter Costello. It may actually be more appropriate for me to debate both Mr Howard and Mr Costello. Because if the Liberals win the election, Mr Howard will have, say, 18 months of Prime Minister then Peter Costello as Prime Minister for 18 months. Mr Crean will debate Mr Costello and I’m happy to debate them both because, if the Liberals win, they will both be serving as Prime Minister in the next term of Parliament. That is the risk that people face and it is the reality that the Liberal Party should face up to and be more honest with the Australian people. 

JOURNALIST:      Would you be happy for a formal debate to take place [inaudible]?

LATHAM:         Yes, sure – also I’ve mentioned it happened, by my memory, in the last election campaign and Simon Crean towelled him up. I’m happy to debate both Mr Howard and Mr Costello because, if the Liberals win, they will both have a go at being Prime Minister. They won’t be honest and say that the Australian people but we all know what is going on and I’m happy to take them both on, as I am sure Simon Crean would be.

JOURNALIST:     A poll out suggests that your comments regarding family shouldn’t [inaudible] hasn’t had an impact on voters. Does that concern you?

LATHAM:         I want to be positive. I want to get on with the job of advocating good policies, such as our Volunteer Defence Service Medal that we are announcing here today to honour the volunteers who served out nation so well in the Defence Forces. So my role is to advocate good positive policy, be constructive. I don’t believe in opposition for opposition’s sake. I just wanted to clear those rumours and speculation out of the way, and that's what I did six days ago.

JOURNALIST:     Will you be [inaudible] policy at [inaudible]?

LATHAM:         Yes, sure. Always focusing on policy other than one day where I had to clear the air and that's what has happened.

Ends