Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (20:20): I rise to support my colleague the honourable member for Berowra's motion and am happy to speak in support of it. The member for Berowra has given a very good account of the problems facing regimental bands—in this case the Royal New South Wales Lancers based in Parramatta. Whilst the member for Canberra has so eloquently gone through the issues of the Australian Army Band Corps and its history, she had the effrontery—the blatant audacity—to say that this $2 million saving was about fiscal responsibility. She said fiscal responsibility, after this government has just gutted the Defence Force to the tune of $5½ billion. Since 2008, the cuts, deferments and imposition on absorbed costs have resulted in over $20 billion being ripped out of Defence to hollow it out. You come in here, Member for Canberra, and talk about fiscal responsibility for $2 million from 14 regimental bands and you expect me to take you seriously. Well, ma'am, with the good grace that I have and as good a member of parliament that you may well be, I find that comment outrageous in the extreme. On 24 August last year the Army, in response to the government's dubious strategic reform program, issued a directive to withdraw support from 14 regimental bands. It was an arbitrary decision—another example where the government failed to consult with the senior staff of the military. The policy has resulted in the Army withdrawing all instruments from these regimental bands, in effect passing the cost of instruments, uniforms and the like onto regimental associations. Why? For that fiscal responsibility, Member for Canberra: to save $2 million while your party and government gutted $20 billion. Let's put that in context: $2 million versus your $20 billion gutting. And you speak of fiscal responsibility—a drop in the ocean that is nothing short of outrageous, especially when you spend $30 million advertising your carbon tax and you cannot even say the term 'carbon tax.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Member for Fadden, I am reluctant to interrupt in the given time, but you are referring to 'you', being the occupier of this chair. I would ask— Mr ROBERT: Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for my youthful exuberance and the word 'you'—but there is a public outrage at the cuts that our Defence Force is going through. The member for Canberra tells me that this wasn't the government's decision; this was General Morrison. General Morrison issued this decision, yet after the public outrage this punitive policy was fiddled, it was changed. The Sydney Morning Herald on 1 October 2001 said that the 14 regimental bands will be allowed to keep their existing instruments but will not be provided any support to maintain those instruments or to purchase new instruments. So, Member for Canberra, what you are saying is that the Chief of Army made this decision and then, after this great public outcry, General Morrison—a man I know well and a man not prone to changing his mind easily, may I say—suddenly changed his mind without any instruction from the minister and without any political engagement or fiddling at all. May I suggest this is what happened, Member for Canberra: that the government, under its strategic reform program, has forced the Army into a range of dreadful cuts, as it is doing right now. After the great outrage, could the minister have said: 'Oh, Chief, this is not going well; could we make a little bit of a change here'? Do you think that could have happened, Member for Canberra, or do you think the Chief of Army simply changed his mind because this was an administrative decision of the Army and nothing to do with the government of the day? If you are suggesting that, I find that hardly credible and I struggle to believe it. The member for Berowra has quite rightly noted that Labor's mean-spirited policy will put significant financial strain on Army reservists and their regimental associations connected with them. These associations so often made up of ex-regimental members—and I can attest to that from personal experience—are 100 per cent committed to their units—100 per cent committed to their communities and the units they serve with. The motion simply asked for a little bit of goodwill. For all the fiscal responsibilities you talk about, how about community responsibility? How about responsibility for the unique nature of military service? But, then again, you will not index DFRDB pensions, so you are saying what your view of the unique nature of military service is. How about a bit of goodwill to assist 14 regimental bands, their associations and the communities that serve our nation? That would not go astray.