Mr BROUGH (Minister for Employment Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) (1:13 PM) —On Ubon, I have written back to the Ubon Group's Mal Barnes recently. I undertook at that meeting, as the member for Brisbane will recall, that, if there were information or evidence that had not—

Mr Edwards —New evidence.

Mr BROUGH —Yes, if there were new evidence that had not been considered by the Moore committee, I would have that looked at. The department could not give me an assurance that the information as provided by the Ubon Group had been considered. They could not say yes or no. So, in faith, given what I said at that meeting, I formed a three-man committee. They are actually meeting now—and when I say now, I mean last week and this week—to take information directly from the Ubon Group. I have made it very clear to them that I have no preconceived position. In their determination I want them to look at whether there is new information; whether it fundamentally changes the decisions that have been taken; and, if so, whether they make a recommendation for the logistics medal. As I or my staff have said to them, they are the criteria. It is not whether we think it is right or wrong or whatever else. If that is the case then that will obviously be what will flow from there.

With the new medal group I undertook not to make the names of the eminent persons known for the simple reason that, as has been the case with many members of parliament, there have been a lot of individuals and groups wanting to make representation. I can absolutely assure you that they are people that you yourself in this position would employ to do such a task, from across the services with both active service and long service. I have asked them to take a look not at the specific request being made by the new medal group but at whether or not we recognise service appropriately and a range of other things. For argument's sake, one of the issues I asked them to look at which has worried me for some time is: do we appropriately acknowledge people that have in fact been killed in training? That is just to give you an example. They have reported their views back to me, and I am undertaking some deliberations.

In regard to your last issue—and I hope I am on the right track, because I do not have the detail with me; I will go back and check afterwards, but will try and help you here—my understanding is that in the event of an elderly veteran marrying very late in life, not for once impugning the motives of the veteran, our aim is to ensure that there is for all intents and purposes a real relationship and that bona fides have been obtained so as not to benefit someone that has not helped that veteran or who does not have a truly marriage-like and loving relationship. I think that is where we are at, if we are on the right issue. I will do a little more work and come back to you on it to make sure that we are not at cross-purposes.