GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (12:49): I want to tell the House about a bloke from Townsville. He's university educated. He's a respected community leader.

He runs a local sporting organisation. He's married, raising a family and wanting to give something back to his country. He put his hand up to join the Australian Army Reserve.

And do you know what stopped him? His beard—not a criminal record, not a lack of qualifications, not a failure to meet essential military requirements, but a beard. He was told that, unless he had a religious, cultural or other approved reason for keeping it, he couldn't join the Army with it.

At a time when Australia needs to strengthen its Defence Force and grow its reserve capability, we have a willing Australian being turned away over facial hair. And here's the absurdity: the Royal Australian Navy allows beards. The Royal Australian Air Force allows beards.

Both services maintain professional standards, discipline and safety while allowing neatly groomed facial hair. But apparently the Army can't. Same Defence Force, same commitment to service, but different rules.

I'm a former soldier. I understand military discipline. I understand standards—whilst I didn't always meet them—and I'd be the last person in this place to suggest we compromise operational readiness.

But this isn't about whether a beard makes someone capable of serving; it's about who gets permission to have one. Defence has rightly modernised many of its policies around personal presentation and identity. The Army accommodates different religious and cultural practices that demonstrate that a modern military can recognise individual circumstances while maintaining professional standards.

So why is an otherwise suitable Australian who simply chose to wear a neatly maintained beard unable to receive the same consideration? This shouldn't be about religion or gender; it should be about whether someone has the character, capability and commitment to serve this country—and if they do, Defence should have a very good operational reason for turning them away.

The government recently celebrated 8,100 Australians enlisting in the Defence Force over the past financial year. But we need more Australians serving. Defence is also talking about strengthening the reserve workforce to meet future strategic demands.

So how does it make sense to tell Australians we need them to step forward and then put unnecessary barriers in the way when they do so? We're investing heavily in recruitment, we're promoting opportunities across Defence, yet a bloke from Townsville puts his hand up and gets knocked back over a beard. You couldn't make this up.

Let's remember what reservists bring to this country. They're teachers, tradies, doctors, business owners and community leaders. They balance civilian careers with military service and stand ready to answer the call when Australia needs them.

In a city like Townsville, with a proud military history, we understand their value. We should be rolling out the welcome mat for capable Australians willing to serve, not putting a razor at the recruiting desk and telling them that that's the price of admission. I'm calling on the Minister for Defence Personnel, Matt Keogh, to urgently review the Army's beard policy.

The Army should explain why it maintains a general prohibition that the Navy and Air Force have already moved beyond. We need practical and consistent standards across the Australian Defence Force—standards that protect safety, maintain discipline but don't unnecessarily exclude good Australians who want to serve. A beard doesn't tell you whether a person has courage, doesn't tell you whether a person can lead, doesn't tell you whether a person will stand beside their mates when things get tough and certainly doesn't tell you how much a person loves this country.

Australia needs more people prepared to put on the uniform. When a good Australian puts his hand up to serve, we should be asking what they can bring to the Defence Force, not whether they are prepared to shave their face to get through the front gate. Minister Keogh, you need to fix this and let this bloke serve his country.

There's a question that the people of Townsville deserve to have answered. When did the Albanese Labor government know about the structural issues surrounding Reef HQ? When did it know, and why weren't the people of Townsville told?

What's unfolding with Reef HQ is deeply concerning. For generations, Reef HQ has been a part of Townsville. It's where school children learned about the Great Barrier Reef, where families visited and where tourists experienced one of the world's great natural wonders.

It is an educational institution, a tourism drawcard and an important part of our city's identity—and it's been closed for more than five years. There have been five years of delays, five years of changing plans and five years of promises. But we need to go through the facts.

In 2021, the former coalition government committed $80.1 million to refurbish Reef HQ. The building had known issues, which is why the refurbishment was required. After the Labor government came to power, the refurbishment was abandoned in favour of a complete rebuild.

The project changed, the timeline changed and the cost changed, but there was no money added to deliver it. In May 2024, Senate estimates confirmed that the Reef Authority had never received the additional funding that it required to undertake the rebuild it had announced. Then, come August 2024, the Townsville City Council faced a significant decision.

The city had $100 million allocated, through the Townsville City Deal, for a concert hall. Instead, in August 2024, the council was given an ultimatum by this prime minister: you can have a concert hall or you can have Reef HQ. It's the first time a council has ever been made to make that decision.

The correct answer is, 'We'll have both,' but the council was forced to vote, and they voted for Reef HQ. A week later the Prime Minister stood in Townsville and celebrated the announcement. The government told our community Reef HQ had been saved.

It said the additional funding would provide certainty. But here's the question: at the time that decision was made, what did the Commonwealth know about the condition of the Ross Creek wall? Had there been engineering concerns identified?

Had concerns been raised with the Reef Authority? Had the department briefed the minister, and, if there were warnings, why weren't they disclosed before the $100 million was redirected? Townsville deserves to know the truth.

We know that there have been reports suggesting structural concerns involving the Ross Creek wall. The possibility of relocating Reef HQ is being discussed—but should not go ahead. The Queensland government and Townsville City Council have raised concerns, and the community is left wondering how a supposedly funded project has ended up back in uncertainty.

I want to know who knew what and when. No vague assurances and not another press release but dates, documents, engineering advice—that's what we want. When was the Ross Creek wall first identified as a potential risk?

When did the Reef Authority become aware? When was the Commonwealth informed? When was the responsible minister briefed?

Why did he keep it from the Townsville community? Was there any information available before the Townsville City Council redirected the $100 million in August 2024? These are straightforward questions.

If the wall issue only emerged afterwards, then the government should release the records that prove it. But, if the government knew there were issues beforehand, Townsville deserves to know why that information was not disclosed, because a funding announcement is not informed consent, and celebrating a redevelopment while withholding material would be an entirely different matter.

I'm not prepared to assume that happened, but I'm not prepared to let the government avoid answering it either. We need to know when the specific risk was identified and what decisions followed. How much has been spent?

How much remains? What happened to the $180 million committed to this project? Our tourism industry awaits this.

Local business awaits this. Townsville deserves answers. We don't want to see any more photo ops; we want to see some follow-up.