Mr HUNT (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) (12:30 PM) —I want to acknowledge the service of the Australians who are commemorated on the 60th anniversary of Victory in the Pacific Day, and I want to do that in three stages. Firstly, I want to discuss the contribution of the many veterans who now reside in my electorate; secondly, I want to commemorate the nature of the conflict—the service, the struggle and the sacrifice that Australians and the war generation in particular made during the course of the Second World War; and, thirdly, I want to examine briefly some of the consequences and long-term challenges which we face even today as the echoes of that conflict continue through our world.

I was fortunate to have the honour of representing the Australian government at nine Victory in the Pacific 60th anniversary commemoration celebrations within my electorate of Flinders during the course of the weekend. They were held at Phillip Island, Sorrento, Rye, Rosebud, Crib Point, Hastings and Dromana-Red Hill RSLs and, in addition, at Jean Turner Lodge, Lotus Lodge and Koorootang Retirement Village. I was able to meet with veterans and to present them with 60th anniversary commemorative medals. At that time, they told me their stories. They told me stories of Milne Bay, Kokoda, the Philippines and Ambon. They told me of service not just in the Pacific but also at Tobruk, in the Middle East more generally, in North Africa, in the Mediterranean, in the European conflict and in the Atlantic. These men and women were in just one electorate, one small part of Australia, and they served Australia in different ways during the Second World War.

To a person, they were modest about their achievements and their contributions. To a person, they had a tremendous respect for and remembrance of those who had served with them and whom they had lost. All knew young Australians who never saw middle age. All had friends and family who had been involved in the conflict but who had not returned. It is that personal element, combined with the sense of getting on with life, which I think symbolises not just the Australian contribution but the Australian spirit during the Second World War, that sense of energy, commitment, personal humility and respect for and remembrance of their colleagues, their friends and their families. It was an extraordinary contribution. But the conflict as a whole, as we look back over 60 years, represents the defining moment of the 20th century.

The 60th anniversary of 15 August represents 60 years since the Japanese surrender. The end of World War II recalls to mind the fact that there were 40,000 Australians who lost their lives, 30,000 Australians who served as prisoners of war and, by some records, 150,000 Australians who suffered serious injury of some form or other. There was an entire generation of Australians who served directly in the military, who worked in support of military activities or who had friends and families who maintained the country during the time in which it was entirely on a war footing.

The threat to Australia was real. Australians played a critical role at Milne Bay, where there was the first defeat of Japanese forces in the Pacific—led by Australians, conducted by Australians and with Australian casualties. The message from Milne Bay was that the conflict could be turned around. It was a critical time. The threat, had that not happened, was that Papua New Guinea would be used as a staging base for attacks against Northern Australia. There was no doubt that one of the objectives was the colonisation of Australian soil. It was a different time; Japan was then a different country from the one it is today. So we take no issue with and we have enormous respect for contemporary Japan. But it is critical that we acknowledge the depth of the threat and the strength of resolve and courage of those who placed themselves in harm’s way—many knowing that the risk of death was exceptionally high and there was virtually no likelihood that they themselves would survive. Sadly, that was the case for 40,000 Australians during the conflict. In the Pacific the places where they served—places such as Balikpapan; Sandakan; Ambon, which I mentioned earlier; Timor; the Philippines; Burma; Singapore; Malaysia; and so many other, different places—echo still today with the remembrance of service given, of conflicts fought and of lives lost.

On behalf of not just the Australian government but also succeeding generations within my electorate of Flinders, I want to express the profound gratitude we have for the service of those people within that Second World War generation. There was, of course, the bravery, skill and commitment of the soldiers. On the civilian front there was an extraordinarily powerful, galvanised nation. There was bipartisan support, for the most part, during the course of the Second World War. Politics, sadly, was not completely shelved, but there was a whole-of-nation approach. So the way in which the nation was led, firstly under the government of Prime Minister Menzies and secondly under the Labor Party, served Australia in its capacity to deal more generally with the outside world and in its capacity to deal internally with what could otherwise have been divisive issues.

I note in particular that Australians played a critical role not just in the Pacific but also in the North African campaign. The Rats of Tobruk, famous for their stoicism, were part of the resistance which ultimately allowed allied forces to retake North Africa and, from there, to move on to Italy, to Greece and to southern France. That was a decisive part to play in the European theatre of conflict. The strength of character shown, the extraordinary resilience and the good humour of Australian troops meant that the Allies maintained a foothold and a base at a critical juncture during that conflict.

Throughout the war, Australians were not only killed and injured but taken prisoner. So we remember now the Burma railway and Sandakan and we remember the hardship. There are famous incidents such as the wartime service of Sir  Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop. Those incidents and those names speak not just for themselves but for all of those other Australians who suffered during the war as prisoners of war. I was fortunate during my time at Melbourne university to come to know Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop. He was an extraordinarily warm and generous person. He carried no rancour for those who had interned him during the course of the Second World War, and he carried a great goodwill and generosity. The fact that as an individual he had those capacities shone very brightly. It said that Australians—and in a sense he exemplifies Australians—have the capacity to look forwards rather than backwards. So, whilst we look backwards today to remember, to honour and to recollect, none of that generation would want us to wallow in the past.

What is of profound importance is that within barely a decade the Australian government, particularly through the work of John McEwen, was able to forge with Japan, which had been 12 years before a bitter enemy, the 1957 Japan-Australia trade agreement. That was not just a critical economic step for Australia but also an extremely important diplomatic step in establishing Australia’s foothold within North Asia and also in moving forwards from that conflict. It was a controversial action. It was an action which received criticism within Australia and was the subject of debate and opposition within the parliament, but it spoke of a willingness, a commitment and a resolution to go forwards rather than backwards. In 1957 the government was not willing to let Australians be held prisoner to the past. Firstly, it wanted to help secure the economic future of Australia; secondly, it wanted to move forward in a way which represented a new world, not an old world.

This brings me to the third point that I wish to make today, and that is in relation to the consequences of the Second World War. There was the immediate consequence, after the extraordinary toll of human suffering—and Oxford academic Alan Bullock, in his book Hitler and Stalin, estimates that about 40 million lives, both military and civilian, were lost over the course of the Second World War. Beyond that extraordinary human toll, the consequences were twofold: there was the division of the world into the Eastern and Western blocs, in geostrategic terms, and, under Stalin, the Soviet Union extended its influence into eastern Europe and parts of central Europe. The result was that for the best part of half a century the world potentially faced the third great conflict of the 20th century. That we were able to avoid that conflict was in large part due to an absolute commitment by people, certainly on the allied side, not to repeat a cataclysmic conflict and to make that commitment from a position of strength, not weakness. They had learnt the lesson of the 1930s that, yes, history should work on a cooperative basis and diplomacy should be a primary tool, but when you are dealing with authoritarian regimes there must be a recognition that the currency, the language, is of resistance and strength, not acquiescence.

That brings me to the message which faces our world today. We live in a world where there is extraordinary cooperation. Japan, Germany and Italy are all integral parts of the community of advanced developed nations. They are nations of great good faith; they are nations of economic prosperity. They each face their own challenges, but they are an integral part of the world. They are an integral part of the world because of the resistance of the generation during the Second World War and because of the foresight of those who were involved in the reconciliation and the reconstruction after the Second World War. The lesson of the First World War was fortunately adhered to, and that was not to ‘beggar thy neighbour’ after the conflict.

So today, in dealing with a new type of conflict, there are two lessons that we draw from both the First World War and the Second World War. The first is that we cannot take a position of weakness in relation to terror and in relation to hostility and conflict. The only way of preventing wholesale slaughter and of preventing attacks is through a position of strength. If we are to withdraw from fronts and leave a vacuum, then that vacuum will be filled by those of hostile intent. Iraq and Afghanistan will be used as a staging point and a base for hostile activities. That was the case with Afghanistan prior to September 11. A weak internal structure was used as the basis for an international movement. It gathered its pace by, and sourced its strength from, preying on the host of a weak internal regime. So the first of the lessons we have to take from World War II is that we must show strength in resistance to hostile forces. They must understand that there is good intent and goodwill but an absolute commitment of resolve.

The second of the messages is that there must be an alternative for people so that they can find their dignity, find their future and have a sense of what is possible. We see that the descent of Germany, after the First World War, during the late 1920s and early 1930s, into an authoritarian state was in large measure due to the fact that the people had been denied economic opportunity. So we have a responsibility to help in the development and promotion of economic freedom and individual hope and capacity within Middle Eastern states, and within those areas where radical Islam would challenge. That must also be tied to the process of giving them a chance for individual freedom. That is why democratisation, slow as it may be, is fundamentally important in the Middle East, and why activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are fundamental to the future. The challenge remains for Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran to take those steps. That is, ultimately, the legacy which we must pursue if we are truly to honour the veterans of World War II. In summation, I acknowledge, respect and honour the debt of gratitude which this generation owes to previous generations, and I thank all of those veterans who served Australia in World War II. (Time expired)