I support the acknowledgement of our traditional landowners and country if it based on a genuine respect for them.  Unfortunately it is often used by the political left as a token of division rather than genuine reconciliation.

I believe the acknowledgement would be more universally accepted if it also acknowledged the sacrifice made by our servicemen and servicewomen on active service in defence of the democratic freedoms we enjoy in Australia today.

On 21 September 2006 I moved the following motion calling on the the President of the NSW Legislative Council to acknowledge the sacrifice made by our servicemen and women after the acknowledgment of the traditional owners of the land:

The Hon Charlie Lynn: I move that in recognition of the year of the ninetieth anniversary of the Australian landing at Anzac Cove in Gallipoli, the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Pacific War and the fortieth anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, this House calls on the President to acknowledge the sacrifice made by Australian service men and women who gave their lives in defence of the freedom we enjoy today after the prayer at the beginning of each sitting week in the following terms: 

“I acknowledge the supreme sacrifice made by the servicemen and women who gave their lives on active service in defence of the freedom we enjoy in New South Wales today.”

Since I proposed my original motion in the House on 4 May we have observed the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan, about which I will speak shortly. Acknowledgment of the traditional owners of the land seems to have been introduced around the time of the republican-reconciliation debates during the Keating Labor era. Left-wing academics, inner-city urban dwellers and doctors’ wives were among the comfortable middle-class voices calling for changes to our flag and our system of parliamentary democracy. They also wanted us to say “sorry” for historical wrongs over which we had no influence.

As it turned out, the only thing that changed was the government. I would hope that these ideological warriors of the Left will come to understand that the wider Australian community will accept such changes to our systems, symbols and institutions only when they are treated as equals in the debate and not as a group of uneducated westies or rednecks. It is my view that concentrating on so-called progressive issues for our indigenous people has done them more harm than good. The feel-good factor for the chattering classes in comfortable inner-city environments does not translate into worthwhile sustainable benefits for indigenous people in remote and isolated areas. It has taken the emergence of indigenous leaders, such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine, to get some balance back into the debate, and to earn the respect of the wider community in the process.

The election of one of the ideological relics of the Left to the presidency of this House brought with it some radical but predictable change. Firstly, our ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen were insulted when representatives of some of the most repressive Communist regimes in the world were invited as official guests to the opening of the House, while our former and current allies, with whom we had spilled blood in conflict with those Communist regimes, were ignored. The next to go was the portrait of the Queen from the public area of the Parliament. The President used considerable vision in the removal of that portrait, given that, because of the position in which it was hung, it was not seen by many who visited the Parliament.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: The motion that the Hon. Charlie Lynn has moved is very specific. It deals with a number of anniversaries in relation to battles fought by Australian servicemen and servicewomen. Nothing he has said so far has related to that motion. However, what he has said in terms of the reconciliation process and the traditional owners of the land, and his reflection on the President, is against the standing orders as well as being totally outside the leave of the motion he has moved.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: To the point of order: The motion states that after the prayer at the beginning of the sitting week we acknowledge the supreme sacrifice made by the servicemen and servicewomen who gave their lives on active service in defence of the freedoms we enjoy in New South Wales today. That was initiated as a result of the introduction to this House of acknowledgment of the traditional owners of this land. Everything I am saying in this debate relates to that original motion, and I will develop the argument as to why our servicemen and servicewomen, who sacrificed their lives on active service in defence of the freedoms we enjoy in New South Wales today should be acknowledged.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Further to the point of order: By the Hon. Charlie Lynn reading parts of his motion for the third time he is hardly saying anything relevant to the point of order. He did not argue, and the motion does not state, that it relates to the acknowledgment of the traditional owners. But I also took exception to his reflections on the President and the monarchy in contravention of the standing orders.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: To the point of order: The Hon. Charlie Lynn’s motion refers to Australian servicemen and servicewomen who gave their lives in defence of the freedoms that we enjoy today. Some of those freedoms are not to be found in some of the regimes to which he referred and that goes to the heart of what he is on about. Therefore there is no point of order.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: To the point of order: I am loath to interfere on the basis that I believe we were reaching some degree of consensus, and that has been my point all along about what form this debate should take. However, I remind the Hon. Charlie Lynn that one of the freedoms members do not enjoy is the freedom to contravene the standing orders. If the Hon. Charlie Lynn wishes to make such aspersions against people outside this Chamber, that is a matter that can be addressed by the due processes of this House. But I would urge you not to allow the Hon. Charlie Lynn to make reflections on members of this House, the monarch or, indeed the Governor General or Governor, in seeking to influence the House to vote in one way or another

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! I have heard sufficient on the point of order. The member may, by way of background for his motion, refer to Aboriginal land rights and the acknowledging of the traditional owners of this land. However, I caution him about reflecting on the President and the monarch. The standing orders are very clear on that.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I was congratulating the President on moving the portrait of the monarch to a place where it is seen by everyone who enters and leaves this place. That is a wonderful thing.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is not a reflection.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: No, that is correct. However, in speaking on behalf of servicemen and servicewomen, the Returned Services League and the Vietnam Veterans Association, I remember the outrage when this Parliament was opened and the high commissioners of North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba were invited into this House as official guests and the representatives of our allies were ignored.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, you probably know that the Hon. Charlie Lynn is ignoring the warning you gave him about reflecting on the President.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The Hon. Charlie Lynn is reflecting on the President, and that is contrary to the standing orders. Such reflections cannot be made unless by way of substantive motion.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: As I said, one group of people in our community should also be acknowledged by our parliaments, our local councils and our educational institutions. That is our servicemen and servicewomen, who sacrifice their lives in defence of the freedom, peace and prosperity that we have in this country today. Since I first spoke on this motion on 4 May we have commemorated the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan. Honourable members will recall the conflict in Vietnam and the conscription program in place at the time. I was conscripted into the army with thousands of other young Australians. Like them, I voluntarily served the governments of the day, both the Liberal Government and the Labor Government. That was a sad period, because it was the first time in our history that our servicemen and servicewomen returning from active service were betrayed by a small minority of radicals who campaigned against us and mocked us when we arrived home. That is probably one of the most disgraceful chapters in our history. I will record the reflections of Major Bill Wallace, who spoke at the battle of Long Tan commemorative service on 20 August this year. He stated:

 ’Colonel John McRae, a Canadian Medical officer in WW I (formerly Professor of Medicine at Macgill University) was the composer of “In Flanders Fields”, which he had written in 1915, but was not published (at first anonymously) until 1923. He died of wounds in May 1918, and on the night before his death said to his doctor this quote from the last stanza. Tell them this, “If ye break faith with us who die we shall not sleep”. Today we honour those who sleep and help them to sleep peacefully.

 ’In recognising that 18th August is the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan (this being the 40th anniversary of that battle), the headline battle from the Australian involvement in the Vietnam conflict, it was not the largest in which the Australian forces were engaged. But it has come to symbolise the conflict in the Australian community.

‘However we are here because this day was appointed by the Parliament of Australia, on advice from the Veterans, to honour the service of the 50,000 Australian servicemen and servicewomen who served in Vietnam between 1962 and 1972. So we gather here not to reflect specifically about the few hundred Australians and New Zealanders who fought the Battle of Long Tan, but all those who served. We are honouring also those who fought at Bien Hoa, in War Zone D, FSB Coral and Balmoral, Binh Ba, Baria, Dat Do, along Route 44, in the Long Hais, Mai Tao Mountains, Hat Dich, Tui Tich, Xuyen Moc, The Horseshoe, The Light Green and the Long Green, in the Courtney Rubber, and along the Song Rai. Not forgetting the heroism of the AA TTV Members in 1 Corps and 2 Corps which resulted in the awarding of many honours including the Victoria Cross on 4 occasions. We must also honour the service of the members of 1 Australian Logistic Support Group in Vung Tau whose efforts kept the combat elements in the field supplied with all the materials needed to wage war, repaired all the damaged equipment, and mended wounded and diseased bodies. And we remember those who served at HQ MV in Saigon, keeping contact with Australia, and co-ordinating the activities of the Australian forces with those of the allied nations.

‘We must also remember the members of the RAAF whether flying Hueys with 9 Sqn out of Vung Tau, with Wallaby Airlines flying their Caribou aircraft to all parts of the country, with the Canberra bombers, destroying enemy installations, isolating the battlefield and disrupting enemy supply lines, or with the C130 Hercules taking men and supplies to and from Vietnam, especially providing those special medical evacuation flights which had a 10 year unblemished record. We also remember the service of the members of the RAN ferrying men and materials from Australia on “The Vung Tau Ferry”, HMAS Sydney and on HMAS Jeparrit, conducting combat and fire support operations along the coast on the DDG Destroyers, the clearance divers keeping the harbours secure, or the pilots of Fleet Air Arm either with the Assault Helicopter Coy at Bear Cat or on attachment to the RAAF Units.

‘But why do we remember these Veterans? What is so special about being a Veteran? The answer quite simply is that these are the only servants of the Australian Nation who have had to be prepared to die to implement national policy. No others are required to make this commitment. When undertaking this service to the nation, these men and women are deprived of any of the personal rights which properly protect our freedom and democracy. When you don a uniform, you lose the right to refuse a lawful command at every level from the CDF to the lowest recruit. If the Government says that this is what is required, the defence force has no alternative but to say “Yes Sir”. This is why the nation does not have occasions such as this to remember the service of government employees who work in the ATO or in the Diplomatic Service. Only Veterans have been required by the Australian Nation to make this ultimate commitment. Only Veterans have been required to be prepared to die in the service of the nation.

‘This makes all Veterans “special”. However, to the veterans it appears that the nation has forgotten this and has allowed Veterans issues to become part of party politics. Veterans believe that if the maintenance of the Defence Force is the premium on the Nation’s Insurance Policy, Veterans are the payout on that policy, and as such are above politics. To provide appropriate support to the veterans is a national obligation, and must progress from being considered “adequate” to being appropriate before those who did not come home will be able to rest peacefully.

‘But we are here today specifically to honour the Veterans of the conflict in Vietnam. Why are these Veterans specially honoured? What is special about being a Vietnam Veteran?

 ’For the first time in Australian History a war was lost. There was no return of conquering heroes to a grateful nation. The attempt to prop up the corrupt military dictatorship in South Vietnam failed and the reunification of Vietnam under the North Vietnamese Government is now a permanent fixture. Australia fought this war with limited political aims, mainly to convince the United States that we were a true and valuable ally, and that the US should fill the vacuum created in SE Asia by the British decision the withdraw to Europe. It could be argued that this also has failed and that Australia is still pursuing a foreign policy to achieve these objectives.

‘It is now beyond dispute that the intelligence advice to the government before the decision to deploy combat troops was taken was that the war was not winnable. Yet the decision was taken which cost the lives of 501 young Australians.

‘As the ADF knew this, the motivation for the soldiers deployed to Vietnam was based purely on mateship, pride and professionalism. When they returned, none of this was recognised.

‘The soldiers felt betrayed by the nation because of this, and buried themselves back into the community. But the recognition that was given to the men after WW II was not afforded to them. Allowances were not made for the effects of war on these young men. I remember when I was a boy that a man’s shortcomings would be tolerated because he was a “Returned Man”. This did not happen in Australia in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Happily it is now being done, but for a great many, the damage is irreparable.

‘During the Vietnam War, the nation was not at war. Other than the families of the soldier, no-one in Australia was required to make any sacrifices. As a result, after the war, veterans issues quickly disappeared over the political horizon, and with some minor exceptions this continues to be the case today. Veterans feel betrayed. The Minister for Veterans Affairs is no longer a stand alone figure, having dual responsibility as a junior minister reporting to the Minister for Defence. Recently the Minister made an important announcement regarding issues about which Vietnam Veterans feel passionate. This media release was widely circulated in the veteran community but ignored in the media.

‘The Prime Minister will attend dinner with the Long Tan Veterans in the Great Hall but will not grant the national president of the TPI Association 10 minutes in his office. Politicians are happy to accept the recommendations of an independent tribunal to fix their own salaries and conditions, but accepted less than 20% of the recommendations made by Justice Clarke who had been appointed to independently review veterans’ entitlements. The electorate accepted without question the spin that the veterans were being looked after, (albeit only after a backbench revolt in the lead up to the election in 2004).

‘Besides the Veterans, the casualties of the Vietnam War have been our beautiful and long suffering families. The one positive is that it is now accepted, although not yet at the policy level, that war has an effect on families. The divorce rate in Vietnam Veterans is almost twice the national average, and the effect on our children has been horrendous.

 The Hon. Jan Burnswoods laughs. This is not something to laugh about; it is a very serious issue among Vietnam veterans. I cannot understand why the Hon. Jan Burnswoods would turn her back on this debate and laugh at these statistics. The address continued:

‘It has been confirmed that in the tragedy of youth suicide, sons and daughters of Vietnam Veterans are over represented by a factor of 3.5. This is not a fact for which the Prime Minister apologised in Parliament on Wednesday. This needless waste of so many wonderful young people continues and is largely ignored. Happily, things may well be changing.

‘Despite world-wide recognition of the effect of dioxin exposure on the health of individuals and their offspring, the Australian Government hides behind a limited scientific opinion, and refuses to revisit this issue. Although it is too late for our children, there are signs that it is being recognised that war affects families and that programs are being developed to attempt to limit these effects. One could say that this is just an extension of occupational Health and Safety which is mandatory on all employers.

‘Vietnam Veterans feel betrayed. In 1969 when I was placing my life on the line for this nation, the special rate of pension paid to permanently incapacitated servicemen was 90% of average weekly earnings. TPI’s did not receive welfare. The neglect of all governments since, which has been accepted by the electorate, has resulted in those people now being welfare dependent. When the automatic adjustments are made next month, for the first time welfare will constitute more than 50% of the income of most TPI’s, and the special rate of pension will be about 40% of the average weekly earnings. Of the 40,000 Vietnam Veterans still alive (5,000 have taken their own lives—10 times as many who died during the conflict), 18,000 are now classed as Totally and Permanently Incapacitated. They feel betrayed as since 1997, all Centrelink Benefits and Parliamentary Superannuation payments have been indexed at the more advantageous rate of MTAWE which has been a serious disadvantage to veterans. I return to my earlier comment that Veteran entitlements should be appropriate, not adequate.

‘This is why Vietnam Veterans are “special”. Mainly for reasons we would rather have ignored or wish had not occurred at all. Whilst there are 40,000 of us still alive, the nation has a chance to make amends, not merely by public expressions of sorrow and gratitude, not by glittering dinners and ceremonies at the fine memorials which have been built, but by changing things which affect the everyday lives of veterans.

‘I found this poem by James D Young which captures the spirit of my address in a fine anthology of Australian Military poetry. 

‘The Folly of War

‘The cannons roar, the bullets whine,
The soldiers’ dreaded fate,
The reason why, not clear to see
Thoughts of logic, far too late.‘Where hide the ones who make the war
Who fashion all the rules,
Not for the battlefield
This honour—left to fools.  

‘Yet fools we are, we men of arms
Who hold our honour high,
While those who make this world of war
Care not that soldiers die. 

‘Vested power to politician
Who, for greed, would sell their soul,
But never they in gunshot sound
For them, no bells do toll.

‘Never yet in history’s time
Were problems solved by force,
Still Man must pay the devil ’s price
The biblical rider, on a pale horse.

‘Where men of science boldly tread
No man has been before,
Yet humanity prospers not a whit
When it comes to the folly of war.

 ’To extrapolate from the words of Colonel John McRae in May 1918; you as the Australian Nation have not kept faith, and those who died are not yet sleeping’.

 I commend Major Wallace for that fine speech to the veterans at the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan commemorative service held in Ballarat on 20 August this year. The address adds weight to the need for us to try to heal the wounds felt by many veterans, particularly Vietnam veterans, who were betrayed by their own people back here. It was not the veterans who started the war; it was the politicians who committed them to war. The veterans simply served their nations as they have always done. If people had wanted to attack the politicians who sent them to war and demonstrate against them, we would have acknowledged that. But to attack the soldiers, as they did, after the Vietnam War was an absolute disgrace. These radicals also tried to hijack Anzac Day ceremonies during the Vietnam War. An article in a 1981 newspaper under the heading “Ugly, violent Anzac Day” reported:

Police and demonstrators clashed violently at yesterday’s Anzac Day march in Canberra.

Who was demonstrating? A bunch of left-wing, radical women, who were campaigning about women raped in war. They were simply trying to grab some very cheap publicity. Federal Labor member Ken Fry described it as “the blackest Anzac Day ever” because these people, who had campaigned against the veterans, tried to then ambush Anzac Day ceremonies. It was also reported in a 1981 newspaper:

The national president of the RSL, Sir William Keys, was unavailable for comment after the march. But on Friday [he said]: “The women can march or demonstrate or protest whenever they want at any other time or place. We do not interfere with their occasions or rights. Why do they want to interrupt ours?

It was an absolute disgrace. When a motion such as this is moved normally the first thing the Left do is seek to discredit the motion, and I anticipate that. The first thing they do is change the word “commemorate” to “celebrate”. Nowhere in my contribution have I used the term “celebration of war”—and never will I. But I will use “commemoration”, in commemorating the deeds of our servicemen. Changing the word from “commemorate” to “celebrate” allows the Left to suggest that we are trying in some way to celebrate war. As I said, anyone who has fought in war would agree that it is not something one would celebrate.

Our involvement in other wars has also been brought up in debate. Our involvement in the Boer War in 1899, our involvement in the Boxer Rebellion and in the Sudan in 1885, and our involvement in the Maori wars in 1863-64 were brought up as examples of why we should not be proud of previous service. I have never proposed that.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: I understand that the Hon. Charlie Lynn is speaking to a motion as written and that he has indicated his intention to include in the motion the words “including the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan”. I believe that is an appropriate amendment, but I understand he needs leave to move the amendment before his time for speaking has expired. That is why I am interrupting him at this point. I ask that he be given leave to incorporate that clause in the motion prior to the conclusion of his contribution.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I thank the Hon. Peter Primrose for reminding me of that. Accordingly, by leave, I move:

That the question be amended by inserting after “Pacific War” the words “the fortieth anniversary of the battle of Long Tan”. 

I remind the House that this motion is about the involvement of Australian servicemen and servicewomen and that we honour that in our words. The Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion and the Maori Wars were not our wars. We were not an Australian nation; we were a British colony. We became an Australian nation on 1 January 1901 and from that time our involvement has been in World War I—and I reflected on that in a previous debate when I spoke of the wonderful leadership of General Sir John Monash and the involvement of Australian troops—and World War II. Australian troops fought first in the Far East, the Middle East, at the battles of Tobruk, El Alamein and so forth, then in the south-west Pacific along the Kokoda track, at Milne Bay, Lae, Finchhafen, Bougainville and so forth. After that they fought in the Korean War and then the Vietnam War. These are the engagements for which I believe the sacrifices of Australian service men and service women should be acknowledged in this Parliament. I hope that eventually they will be acknowledged in all parliaments, including the Federal Parliament, and in all local government councils after the acknowledgment of the traditional owners of the land.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [11.40 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill for an Act to require the Hurlstone Agricultural High School site to be retained for educational purposes. The objects of the bill are to ensure that the Hurlstone Agricultural High School site remains in public ownership and to limit the use of the site to that of a government school. Clause 1 sets out the name of the proposed Act. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act on the date of assent to the proposed Act. Clause 3 defines the Hurlstone Agricultural High School site and contains other interpretative provisions. Clause 4 specifies the objects of the proposed Act, as referred to in the overview I have just given. Clause 5 prohibits the Hurlstone Agricultural High School site from being sold, transferred, leased or otherwise alienated. Clause 6 restricts development of the site so that it can be used only for the purposes of a government school. Clause 7 prevents any development of the site from becoming a project to which part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 applies.

Hurlstone Agricultural High School is a selective high school of excellence located in a diminishing green belt on the south-western fringe of the Sydney metropolitan area. The origins of the school are steeped in our history. It began in 1878 with a vision by John Kinloch to establish his own school, the Hurlstone School and College, named in honour of his mother. The original estate lay in the vicinity of Hurlstone Park, Ashfield. John Kinloch was one of the first graduates of the University of Sydney. Financial hardship eventually forced the sale of the college to the New South Wales Government, which saw the value and benefit to the community of an agricultural college. Visionaries such as John Kinloch have long since departed the ranks of this once proud party.

The Hurlstone Agricultural Continuation School was reopened in 1907 and commenced with one pupil. By the end of the first year it had 30 students. The student population grew to 148 and the school subsequently moved to a 330-hectare property at Glenfield, which was part of an original land grant to the convict James Meehan. The school took possession of the property in 1926 and has educated rural leaders, agricultural scientists and farmers ever since. Today the school has a student population of 967 from metropolitan, regional and rural areas of New South Wales. The Hurlstone Agricultural High School has a proud alumni, a proud heritage of service to the nation and has achieved academic excellence in agricultural education.

According to the prospectus of the school, in 1920 its students nobly upheld the honour of their school in the Great War—156 boys, who represented 54 per cent of the student population aged 18 years and over. Ten of those boys never returned. In World War II the students answered the call again. During the war 844 boys fought with Australian and British forces, with 68 making the supreme sacrifice for our freedom. One of these men, Corporal John Edmondson, tragically was killed while fighting in Tobruk. He was the first Australian to be awarded the Victoria Cross in World War II. The Edmondson VC RSL Club in Liverpool commemorates his memory and his sacrifice for nation. The proud spirit of Hurlstone is reflected in the words of the school song, which was penned in 1912:

Come, gather round, ye Hurlstone lads,
And sing with might and main;
‘Tis here we learn our dairy work
And how to sow the grain.
‘Tis here we learn our orchard work,
To spray, and prune, and drain,
‘Neath the eye of the good old boss of Hurlstone.

Hurrah! Hurrah! For the plough, the harrow and the hoe
Hurrah! Hurrah! For the wheat in a waving row,
And when we’re out upon our own,
The good results will show.
What we have learned at dear old Hurlstone.
We’ve soldered in the plumbers shop,
And shaped the sheets of tin;
We’ve hammered nails and blunted planes—
A craftsman’s skill to win;
And often after ‘ragging’, the office we’ve been in,
So well known to all of us at Hurlstone.

You ought to see our football team,
When they start kicking goals;
They score the tries and tear it in
With all their hearts and souls,
While on the field the other side,
Lie ‘dead’ in countless shoals,
When the Blue and Gold play up for Hurlstone.

We’ve sought the mighty liver fluke,
And learned about its ways,
And how it is, and why it is Merino wool it pays,
And faced with aid of microscope
The fierce Amoeba’s gaze
In the modern science room at Hurlstone.

And here’s to those who’ve gone before,
To fortune and to fame, Old Boys in far Gallipoli
Who made for us a name,
And in the years that are to come
We hope to do the same, for the honour of
The dear old School at Hurlstone.

It would be a sad indictment of the character of any member of this Parliament who would contemplate a vote to sell off the proud heritage of Hurlstone Agricultural High School to property developers for 30 pieces of silver. As a former soldier, I say there could be no greater insult to the memory of Corporal John Edmondson, VC. It begs the question whether anything is sacred to this mob, which is desperate to stay in power for the sake of staying in power. The Hurlstone farm is a vital resource for the quality teaching of agriculture. The decision to sell the land is based on the notion that the school has surplus land. However, agriculture involves practical experience; you cannot teach it out of a book. Students need to be able to smell, see and feel what it is like on a farm in order to be good at it.

Best practice suggests that 160 hectares can sustain 127 cattle; Hurlstone Agricultural High School has 118 cattle. It also has 76 sheep, 29 goats, 58 pigs, three alpacas and 248 poultry. The 115-hectare farm is fully utilised at slightly above recommended stocking levels. Land and animals are linked to specific husbandry and agricultural education outcomes. Hurlstone agricultural farm has no surplus land. The entire farm is valued and used for educational purposes. If the land were sold, the school would no longer function as it does now; the school would stagnate.

No doubt the Treasurer is using eastern suburbs logic in his fire sale of our public asset. We know he lives among the elite in Sydney’s wealthiest and most exclusive suburbs, many of whom have made their millions from property development. Many are generous donors to the Labor Party. The Treasurer’s boundary between east and west is Sussex Street. Westies live on the other side of the divide. The Treasurer does not mind mixing with these types for the odd photo opportunity, but they would never be invited to rub shoulders with his rich and powerful friends around Vaucluse and Rose Bay. If there is one position that will get you on the social A-list in Vaucluse and Rose Bay, it is that of Treasurer. Money is the language of the eastern suburbs and status is assessed by how much you have or how much you control. How you got it does not matter much.

The blood of the former Premier and former Treasurer had barely been cleaned from the carpets in Sussex Street when the present Treasurer got the call. Now he has made his mark: the State’s economy has been trashed by the highest-spending Government in New South Wales history. Its last budget was a shambles because it could not deliver in its own party the numbers needed to privatise the power industry. The Treasurer put together a fire sale of public assets that included the Hurlstone Agricultural High School at Glenfield. He rubbed salt into the wound by adding that students in western Sydney and rural New South Wales would have to walk further to and from classes each school day. It was heavy stuff. He got to speak in the Legislative Assembly. He was on television and radio. He was on the eastern suburbs A-list—speaking to double-A people about the triple-A rating. He jetted off to New York at the pointy end of the plane just as it all began to unravel. The Premier was told that the westies were revolting.

The Treasurer agreed, but the Premier thought he did not fully understand the message so he had to prick his bubble by telling students that they could catch a bus to school. Then the shadow Treasurer and former shadow Minister for Finance, Mike Baird, took a closer look at the Treasurer’s fire sale of the Hurlstone Agricultural High School. In his reply to the Treasurer’s mini-budget on 3 December, the shadow Treasurer said he was amazed to hear that the State Property Authority, which is our articulate expert in this area, did not have input in determining the valuation of the property. He advised that a critical amount of more than $800 million for all the public assets in the fire sale had not been verified by the Government’s experts, who had no involvement in the process. The Government’s own advisers say that they will not be able to sell 140 hectares, as they have been telling the public. The most realistic assessment is that they will be able to sell only more like 50 hectares, which will deliver only a fraction of the expected revenue included in the now-disgraced mini-budget. The black hole left by the Premier’s backflip on school bus passes is now Eric’s abyss. It is clear that the Treasurer’s figure of $800 million was a SWAG, which is an old Army acronym for scientific wild-assed guess!

If that was the Government’s figure late last year, one can only guess what the property now would be worth, as we plunge deeper into the worst recession that we have had since the Great Depression. This is not the first time that this Labor Government has tried to get its grubby hands on the school so that it could sell it off to wealthy land developers. In 2003, another eastern suburbs icon, the Hon. Andrew Refshauge, tried to flog it when he was the Minister for Education and Training. Back then he was reminded by some astute students of the school that his predecessor, the Hon. John Watkins, had “completely ruled the sale of the land out”. In a letter to the Hon. Andrew Refshauge, they wrote:

Hurlstone is a unique school, which continues to mould students into leaders of society. Our school prides its reputation on producing a well rounded student, that is offered the best education due to the many different facets of learning that are offered at Hurlstone.

The Hon. Christine Robertson may well mock what the students wrote to Andrew Refshauge, but they were genuine. I know she does not have a feel for western Sydney, but some of us who have lived there all our lives do. Further back, in 1995, a residential agricultural high school review into the viability of agricultural production of agricultural schools reported:

The consensus of the working party was that none of the farming ventures would ever be commercially viable operations, because of the small size and the use of unionised labour which is both inflexible and expensive. Each of the schools however, operate what could be considered a main farming activity; Hurlstone dairy operation [at Glenfield], Yanco piggery [in the Riverina] and Farrer stud beef cattle [at Tamworth].

The one common factor that each of those schools needed to fulfil their role as agricultural educators is land—not virtual land, but real land that can sustain crops and livestock on a sufficient scale for educational purposes. Our historic economic development has been underpinned by agriculture. We owe the standard of living we enjoy today to this vital industry. The combination of modern science, quality education and real experience will ensure that we continue to develop our leadership in this field, where demand threatens to outstrip supply because of climatic and population trends in the world in general and our region in particular.

Farmers have already been belted around by the drought. The New South Wales Government is making a bad situation worse by cutting the number of city students who will be exposed to agriculture. I should mention that students of non-English speaking backgrounds comprise more than 60 per cent of the student population at Hurlstone. In the working-class western suburbs there are a lot of students who would otherwise not be introduced to agricultural pursuits, but the Hurlstone working farm gives them that opportunity. But, more importantly, something of value that cannot be measured in economic terms is that our rural students from throughout New South Wales who reside at the school as part of their education have the opportunity of meeting students from a wide variety of non-English speaking backgrounds and to learn about their culture and language. They form lifelong friendships and mateships, which helps them to understand the diversity of culture in metropolitan Sydney. That is an experience that many students do not get in country towns. That is the unknown role played by the Hurlstone Agricultural High School.

The proposed sell-off of Hurlstone will have a serious long-term impact on our rural economy. It goes without saying that if we do not have good farmers and farming practices, which is what the Hurlstone Agricultural High School teaches, we will not have viable rural towns in many areas, due to their dependence on farming families. But rather than trying to geld the industry, as this short-sighted, quick-fix Government seems intent on doing, we should be seeking ways of enhancing it. We have land. We have the talent. All we need is the commitment from those who are charged with articulating our vision for the future.

Unfortunately the vision of the short-sighted political pygmies in this Government is limited to 2011. One has only to look at the pathetic response by the Government to an attempt by the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, to debate in the other place as a matter of urgency the fire sale of the Hurlstone Agricultural High School. The Government had a great opportunity to explain how it would use the proceeds of the sale to add value to agricultural education in the State; but rather than do that, those political pygmies gibbered on about using the money to fund infrastructure upgrades at nearby public schools. Any funds left over would be reinvested in capital works in schools throughout the State or redirected to services in other agencies. That is Orwellian speak for marginal seat slush funding. It does not get any more pathetic than that.
If the current Government had been in charge when the First Fleet arrived, the convicts would have stayed aboard and put back to sea. The appointment of the new Minister for Planning, Kristina Keneally, by the new Premier, Nathan Rees, prompted speculation that she may well have been passed a poison chalice. On 29 November last year, the Sydney Morning Herald noted that the Planning portfolio had been plagued by controversy over the millions of dollars that hungry developers had poured into Labor’s coffers. While the new Minister might have been presented as a political cleanskin, she was also still on training wheels in regard to experience in running a ministry. The Sydney Morning Herald noted that after only 12 weeks in the job, she had already set alarm bells ringing.

A tight circle of Labor elders associated with former leaders Paul Keating, Bob Carr and Morris Iemma began to notice some uncanny parallels behind the scenes with the actions of her political patron, the Minister for Finance, Joe Tripodi, and his fellow hard Right powerbroker, the Hon. Eddie Obeid, in the months leading to Iemma’s downfall. They expressed concern that the new Minister looked as though she was about to repeat the planning mistakes of the past, when the suburbs in western Sydney were left without decent shops, schools and rail links for years. Major concerns were expressed about the fact that some of the State’s most powerful housing and land release agencies had been stripped of planning functions while Joe Tripodi was handed a big say in the management of more than $1 billion worth of strategic land around Sydney.

The Sydney Morning Herald noted that the well-regarded Growth Centres Commission, which was set up three years ago to kick-start new suburbs on the outskirts of Sydney and to make sure that roads, water and sewerage were delivered properly, has been absorbed back into the under-resourced Department of Planning. The new Minister advised the Sydney Morning Herald that she had consulted widely in her attempt to clean up the planning system—a task that former Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, had commenced. Unfortunately, Frank was knocked off his perch because he rattled too many factional cages in the process. The Minister’s detractors in her own party accuse her of not only delivering much of the Tripodi-Obeid agenda—an agenda that was resisted by Morris Iemma and Frank Sartor—

The political links between this Labor Government and developers needs to be examined during debate on this bill. The Sydney Morning Heraldreported that the Minister for Planning has detractors within her own party who accuse her not only of delivering much of the Tripodi-Obeid agenda—an agenda that was resisted by Morris Iemma and Frank Sartor with fatal political consequences for both of them—but also of accommodating the Urban Taskforce, which is regarded as the most aggressively anti-regulation group of the developer mates lobby groups. Unlike associations in the industry, its membership is by invitation only. One can only imagine the joy of receiving an invitation from Joe and Eddie! The former Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, regards it as the least credible of the property lobbies.

The co-founder of the task force is David Tanevski, who is a key player with a long association with Labor. He has been mates with Joe Tripodi for many years, and the two are veterans of past Labor branch-stacking battles. The director of the task force is Aaron Gadiel, a former chief of staff to both Joe Tripodi and the Hon. Eddie Obeid. The new Minister for Planning, Kristina Keneally, has a strong personal allegiance to Joe Tripodi because he delivered the numbers for her preselection. Her husband, Ben, was a friend of Joe Tripodi’s at the University of Sydney. The Taliban would envy this network.

The Sydney Morning Herald revealed that its sources believed Joe Tripodi, the Hon. Eddie Obeid and their front organisation, the Urban Taskforce, wanted particular developers outside the planning protocols of the Growth Centres Commission to jump the queue. One does not have to be a Rhodes Scholar to identify Labor’s developer mates. The invitation list for developer donors who attended a fundraising dinner in support of Labor mayor Nick Lalich when he ran for the seat of Cabramatta in the recent by-election is a veritable who’s who of Labor mates. Some of them could have walked straight out of the set of Underbelly! These developers have a lot of political clout in south-western Sydney’s Labor circles. Overdevelopment in western Sydney is obviously not one of the major concerns, but we have a responsibility to stop any attempt to rape our heritage and diminish the quality of agricultural education in this State.

Last year the Department of Primary Industries objected to a school being developed on prime agricultural land in Camden because of its detrimental impact on diminishing viable agricultural land. The department emphasised the importance of protecting scarce agricultural land from urban encroachment in the Sydney Basin. Unfortunately the Treasurer’s vision for a parcel of land like Hurlstone Agricultural High School is limited to the number of housing blocks and shops that his developer mates can put on it. The proposed development of the land will increase the burden on local infrastructure, which already is at capacity. Glenfield is already congested and does not have the infrastructure to cope with more development. Local hospital waiting times are painfully long and the M5 Motorway cannot cope with the daily demand.

The Government obviously has thought about the problems it faces in meeting its obligations to its developer mates and so organised a smoke and mirrors strategy to dupe the public in regard to its real intentions. Its first challenge was to create a perception that it is at arms length from the land grab. This was done by announcing an independent public inquiry. The second problem would be how to limit the collateral damage to their local parliamentary representative Dr Andrew McDonald. This would be done by arranging for Dr McDonald to call for the independent public inquiry, and get the Government to agree to his call. On 17 February the local Macarthur newspapers announced “an independent public inquiry into the planned land sell-off at Hurlstone Agricultural High School”.

True to form and right on cue, the local member, Dr Andrew McDonald, chimed in and said, ” the question of land use on the Hurlstone site has to be resolved once and for all”. Dr McDonald said he was confident that the Premier and the Minister for Education and Training, Verity Firth, would agree. And sure enough, during the following week on 24 February the Minister for Education and Training announced that both she and the Premier, Nathan Rees, would back Dr McDonald’s call for an independent and public inquiry. The Minister gushed that “whoever chaired it would be independent”. Yeah, sure!

We now know that the Government already had drawn up plans to have an inquiry into the sale, with the terms of reference and a draft list of names of participants having been drawn up in February—long before Dr Andrew McDonald proposed an inquiry and Verity Firth said, “What a great idea!” All that was missing from these documents was the outcome of the inquiry. Any Minister who needs a public inquiry to understand the value of an agricultural educational facility that is accessible to students from western Sydney and rural New South Wales is a dunce. The Minister’s assurance that the chair of the inquiry would be independent is pure folly. Such a person does not exist in this State. After 13 years of Labor rule, under the ruthless influence of Joe Tripodi and the Hon. Eddie Obeid, any such person either has been gelded politically or they are completely compliant with the outcomes that Labor wishes to achieve. We know that the Government’s spin doctors would have monitored the local media to see if the locals had swallowed the subterfuge of a so-called independent inquiry. No doubt they would have been disappointed at a posting from “Independent” on the website, who advised:

It seems like this inquiry has been put together to save Andrew McDonald not Hurlstone. How unusual for an inquiry to have an ‘investigation’ arm to it. Where will these experts come from? Will they be truly independent? Why, when the sale was first announced did then government say that it was the sale of ’surplus’ land? Now the school is going to be ‘compared’ to other selective schools, James Ruse, Farrah and Yanco to ensure they are 21st century whatever that means? I don’t know of one public school that you could consider 21st century. They simply do not have the funds to have 21st-century facilities. It would seem now the school has demonstrated that there is no surplus land they want to find a method to sell Hurlstone. This government can not be trusted. They have lied and deceived this State for far too long and this witch hunt has been designed to allow the local members to stand up and say look at what I got for you. Well we have one message to the government. Hands off our farm and hands off this local greenspace. Hurlstone is not for sale and if one inch of this land is sold then Andrew McDonald and his government can expect it to be an issue at the next election.

And this one from Darlusz:

Rather than sell the farm, how about improving it, and making it an educational resource for schools from all around Sydney to visit. Bus students in from urban schools for a day of education on the farm! This country is built on agriculture, we should be encouraging kids in urban centres to learn about it, and experience it, without travelling for hours to see a real farm.

I do not know Darlusz. I do not know if Darlusz is a he or she, and I do not know where he or she lives. But I do know that Darlusz has displayed more commonsense on this issue than the entire caucus can muster as a collective. If we want students to achieve excellence in our public education system, we should take note of what they have to say, and it is obvious that they are against this proposal. An organisation called Team Macarthur has been heralded as a new power group within the dysfunctional Labor Party. The group comprises the member for Macquarie Fields, the member for Camden, the member for Campbelltown and the member for Wollondilly. If they want to represent their constituents, they can stop the sale by walking into the Premier’s office and saying, “It’s not on.” They did it with electricity privatisation—members opposite did it—and they can do it with Hurlstone school. The question we must ask is this: Do the members of Team Macarthur have the intestinal fortitude to walk in and stop this fire sale and protect the small amount of green belt we have left from Labor’s developer mates? It will be interesting to see whether they turn out to be the men of Macarthur or they scurry away as the mice of Macarthur. I tend to think it will be the mice of Macarthur.

I challenge those members to stand up and take on the Treasurer. The Treasurer’s experience of farm products is a boutique supermarket in Rose Bay, and he thinks Centennial Park is extensive quality farmland. That is all he has got. I challenge the men of Team Macarthur to stand up to the Treasurer and the Premier and stop this land grab and this donation to their Labor mates. Normally there are two sides to most arguments but that is not the case with the Government’s plan to sell off the Hurlstone farm. I challenge the Government to provide details of any community benefit or any moral justification for the sale. There will certainly be no improvement to agricultural education, which is the raison d’être of the school.

There is obviously no heritage value in the farm or any value in practical agricultural education in the eyes of the Treasurer. Obviously the Government does not see any value in protecting the last remnant of the once famed green belt separating us from Sydney’s ugly urban sprawl. This is just a grubby cash grab in the finest traditions of the New South Wales Labor mates club. The sale is bad for education, bad for agriculture and bad for the local community. I call on members to support this bill and save Hurlstone farm from Labor’s greedy developer mates.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

HURLSTONE AGRICULTURAL HIGH SCHOOL SITE BILL PART 1
HURLSTONE AGRICULTURAL HIGH SCHOOL SITE BILL PART 2

After the fall of Saigon I could never understand why the Whitlam Labor Government would not allow South Vietnamese people refuge in Australia. We had developed strong bonds with the South Vietnamese people and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. Our Australian Army training team, the most decorated unit in the Vietnam War, fought with the Army of the Republic of Vietnam units, and our civil affairs unit was deployed to deliver essential services to villages in Phuoc Tuy Province. Australian Vietnam veterans felt a great sense of betrayal as the people they had fought for, and others had died for, were denied safe haven because Gough Whitlam wanted to appease the new Communist regime. Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser reversed this inhumane policy after the defeat of the Whitlam Government. We now know, after the release of Cabinet papers in January 2007, that there would not be a Vietnamese community in Cabramatta if it were not for the Liberal Government.

An 11-year-old refugee girl Dai Le was a beneficiary of Malcolm Fraser’s decision. She had been ushered to the boats by her parents, along with her two sisters, during the chaotic evacuation of Saigon as the tanks of the North Vietnamese Communist army rolled into the city. Dai Le’s father never made it to the boat. They never saw him again. During the next four years they survived treacherous sea voyages on overcrowded boats. They lived in squalid refugee camps in the Philippines and Hong Kong as an uncaring world ignored their plight. Malcolm Fraser gave them hope of a better life with his reversal of Gough Whitlam’s edict to refuse entry to boat people. Dai’s mother and two sisters settled in Wollongong. Here she had to quickly learn English and try her best to fit in with her new friends. Her young mother, Anne, cleaned houses to educate her daughters. They later moved to Cabramatta where Dai Le completed her Higher School Certificate, then studied journalism and political science at Macquarie University. She then worked as a journalist with the local Fairfield Champion and later worked with the ABC radio national program.

Dai Le’s life experiences sparked a desire to tell the story of her people. She achieved this through the production of television documentaries such as Operation Babylift, In Limbo, Starting from Zero and Taking Charge of Cabramatta. Dai’s family roots are now firmly embedded in Cabramatta, even though she later moved to Marrickville with her partner, Markus, and her son, Ethan, to be closer to her work at the ABC. Public transport was not an option for her given the lack of services in the Cabramatta area.

Reba Meagher’s decision to resign from Parliament and formally abandon the seat she had informally abandoned 14 years ago caused Dai Le to take the next step and become a voice for her people. The only effective way to do this was to join the Liberal Party because it was the Liberal Party that gave her a home, safe haven, hope and a future. She was also aware that Labor takes her people for granted and treats Cabramatta with contempt. One does not have to spend much time in the area to see the results of Labor’s neglect of this area. Daily traffic jams, dilapidated and inadequate car parks, overgrown and shabby parklands and a proposal to divide the city with a railway wall are testimony to this neglect.

Dai Le’s campaign to break Labor’s stranglehold on the seat of Cabramatta was simply outstanding when one considers the time and resources that were available. She gave hope to those who were resigned to another decade of Labor neglect. We are proud to have Dai Le as our Liberal candidate and we look forward to welcoming her as the member for Cabramatta in this Parliament in 2011. As a Vietnam veteran, I am proud to work to assist a Vietnam refugee become a member of Parliament. Back in 1967 I drove a bulldozer, and if anyone had suggested back then that one day I would be a member of Parliament helping a young boat person whom the Labor Party had abandoned and tried to prevent from coming here to also become a member of Parliament, I would have said, “You’re dreaming.” I am so proud to be able to assist Dai Le in this way, and I am equally proud that the Liberal Party has given Cabramatta the opportunity to have Dai Le as its representative and a voice in this Parliament.

The threatened collapse of nation states in our Pacific neighbourhood and the scourge of terrorism have awakened Australia to the need for a more proactive leadership role in the South Pacific region.

Since World War 11 Australia has punched well above its weight on the international stage. European Union and ASEAN trading blocks and powerful domestic lobby groups in the United States have not precluded us from successfully penetrating overseas markets. We took on the world to win the 2000 Olympic Games for Sydney and we have been America’s most loyal ally in the international struggle against communism, socialism and the more recent war against terrorism. Our early and generous response to the Asian tsunami gained international acclaim.

But whilst our international gaze has been well over the Pacific horizon a crisis has emerged in our very own neighbourhood – the island chain extending from Timor in the northwest through West Papua, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Vanuatu, Kiribati, the Solomons and Fiji. This island chain is now regarded as our arc of instability.

Recent reports from the Centre of Independent Studies, the Menzies Research Centre and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have traced our historical ties with each of these nation states and the impact of our withdrawal from anything smacking of neo-colonialism in the 1970s. More ominously they have highlighted the failure of our aid policies over the decades since they were granted independence from their colonial administrators.

Those with expertise in the region warn of catastrophic consequences for Australia and the island nation states if the impending crisis is not arrested.

This realization has led to direct intervention in Timor and The Solomons, a change in our aid policy from a ‘magic pudding’ concept to a ‘tied-aid’ policy formula, a more forthright role in the Pacific Forum, and the implementation of an Enhanced Cooperation Program (ECP) for Papua New Guinea which was destined to fail. The ECP was estimated to cost $800 million over five years in addition to our annual aid budget of $320 million. It was cut short because of a constitutional challenge in the PNG courts. The sudden influx of funds into PNG caused former Prime Minister, Sir Mekere Morauta, to express a word of caution:

“I am worried that the Enhanced Cooperation Program is too much at once, and expensive for what it might achieve’ he wrote. What is critical for any measure of success is for Papua New Guinean officials to be deeply involved in it and for people to see tangible accomplishments soon.”

Sir Mekere understands his people.

Each of the reports I mentioned has made a significant contribution to the debate about the significance of our relationship with PNG and our international responsibility as a leader in the region.

But, as I stand before you here today, it is difficult to see a solution to the challenges PNG faces with the diversity and complexity of its 800 plus cultural groups separated by formidable physical barriers with little or no communications between them.

When I first began trekking Kokoda during the ‘90’s, PNG began to experience major economic and social problems. Curfews were introduced in Port Moresby because of a breakdown of law and order; the local currency crashed; a major political crisis erupted when mercenaries were recruited to fight in Bougainville; billions of dollars in international aid money was wasted; mining and exploration closed down; a bloated public service with up to 7500 ‘ghost’ workers was unable to deliver essential social services to rural areas where 85% of the population live; urban drift from remote villages to major population centres in Port Moresby and Lae created chronic problems within wantok settlements; and corruption emerged in the political system.

The problems now faced by PNG seem almost insurmountable and have recently been the subject of a number of reports on cause and effect with positive suggestions for remedial action.

Our practical experience in dealing with a subject as meaningful as Kokoda indicates that we have much work to do in order to develop an empathetic understanding of our closest neighbour. Indeed, if we don’t begin to develop realistic intangible goals in this area now, then we risk failing in our endeavours to assist them in overcoming their problems.

Our model for a Kokoda National Memorial Park was based on the premise that it should provide a self-sustaining eco-trekking industry for the Koiari and Orokaiva people who live along it and that is should protect the historical, cultural and environmental integrity of the track. Once completed the plan would be used as a model for the development of a self-sustaining eco-tourism industry within PNG. We saw it as a small contribution we could make to the people who helped us so much during the war in the Pacific and who now need a hand themselves.

Our first obstacle was a prevailing attitude within government that the Kokoda Trail is the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs. All communication with Ministers of other departments resulted in a reply that politely advised us that ‘PNG is a sovereign country’, and that our inquiry had been referred to the Minster for Veterans Affairs for a more detailed response. Only a bureaucratic staffer could have drafted such a patronising response!

We argued that proper recognition of Kokoda involved a number of departments – Foreign Affairs, Defence, Veterans Affairs, Education, Environment and the Arts. We proposed that an interdepartmental team of advisors be formed to join with their PNG counterparts and trek across the Kokoda Trail to gain a proper understanding of what it represented, and what needed to be done to have it proclaimed as a national memorial park.

We have not been successful in this regard but as we now know increasing numbers of Australians, young and old, are now beginning to trek across Kokoda.

Our experience in working with PNG and various government agencies has provided a valuable insight into the challenges faced in developing any type of sustainable tourism operations based on the history of the Pacific War.

Australian trekkers arriving in Port Moresby for the first time are struck by the squalor of the settlements surrounding the city, the countless thousands of unemployed people, and the forbidding razor wire wrapped around every house in the city.

After spending their first night in a heavily guarded 4-star hotel they catch a charter flight over the Owen Stanley Ranges to the village of Kokoda.

As they move from the airfield, which was a key factor in the decision to send troops to Kokoda in July 1942, they are greeted with shouts of ‘Oro! Oro! Oro!’ (Welcome! Welcome! Welcome!) as they climb the plateau towards the village. ‘Kokoda’ is an Orokaiva word meaning ‘place of skulls’. Australia’s first Victoria Cross winner, Private Bruce Kingsbury was buried here. His body was transferred to Bomana War Cemetery after the war.

On the north western edge of the plateau is a large generator installed when PNG was governed as a mandated territory by Australia. It has been idle for more than 20 years and the network of power poles connecting houses and administration buildings are derelict and rotting. A large disused concrete tank is a haunting reminder that the village once had a water and sewerage system.

As trekkers follow the footsteps of the brave back along the track they come into direct contact with remote village communities. On day 3 they arrive at Templeton’s Crossing which is the boundary between Oro and Central Province. The Orokaiva and Mountain Koiari clans in this area have been converted to the Seventh Day Adventist Church. They stay converted under the watchful eye of local pastors who conduct church services twice daily at 6.00 am and 6.00 pm. Children with angelic voices and swollen bellies sing hymns in perfect harmony.

A noticeable aspect of village life is the absence of young men who are either working in distant gardens or have gone down the track to seek better opportunities amongst the bright lights of Moresby. Older men sit around their huts while women care for the village, nurture the young and prepare the meals.

Those who venture down to Moresby find there is little work available and are soon reliant on their ‘wan tok’ system for sustenance. Some turn to crime to meet basic needs while others join the fasting growing industry in the country – security! Thousands of uniformed guards with fierce dogs are trucked into the city before dusk each day to stop their own people trying to breach the razor wire fortresses around Moresby.

Back in the villages trekkers notice basic Aid projects designed to support subsistence living in remote areas. Water systems, classrooms and medical centres are in various states of repair due to a lack of recurrent funding for maintenance, school/medical supplies and wages.

Despite these daily challenges villages are warm, friendly and generous with their offerings of food and assistance to trekkers. The legacy of their ‘fuzzy wuzzy angel forbears is evident to all who trek Kokoda. During their ordeal they establish bonds with local guides who tell them of their daily struggle for survival and of their plans for the future.

On return to our affluent society many trekkers want to help but they soon find this is easier said than done. There is no guarantee that clothing parcels, medical supplies, electronic goods or even letters will reach the intended recipient due to the lack of a reliable distribution service to remote villages. Phone, fax and email communications are out of the question. Assistance with educational programs are almost impossible to monitor as school fees are easily misappropriated and students often substituted.

This may well be the reason why World Vision does not have a sponsorship program for PNG students!

What needs to be done?

Short term:

Access to seasonal labour markets
Student scholarship programs
Sporting scholarships
Public and private enterprise exchange programs
Village Partnerships in agriculture and eco/cultural tourism
Assistance with Police, the Judiciary, the army. Teachers, doctors and nurses.
Establishment of ‘Village Cooperatives’

Long Term