Darren Chester's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Labor Government | Statements by Members | House debates
Victoria: Bushfires | Private Members' Business | House debates
Bingo—bingo! The member for Nicholls is spot on, because these were the skilled workers in the bush with the equipment that we relied on to keep us safe. In an act of absolute political...
Bingo—bingo! The member for Nicholls is spot on, because these were the skilled workers in the bush with the equipment that we relied on to keep us safe. In an act of absolute political bastardry—ideology gone mad—the Labor-Greens in Victoria combined to shut down the native hardwood timber industry, and our communities are less safe as a direct result of that policy decision. So I call on the Victorian parliament—the Liberals and the Nationals, I wish you all the best in the lead-up to next election—if you get that opportunity, restore the native hardwood timber industry to help keep our communities safe. Now, finally, I want to reflect just on one other point. I do admire locals who manage to maintain their passion and enthusiasm for practical environmental management, even in the face of all this hostility from the Labor-Greens in Melbourne. And one of those locals is a fellow by the name of John Mulligan. John is 94 and he's just launched his new book called Our Mismanaged Forests, which draws on his decades of experience of living and working in the bush. Now, John is a survivor of the 1939 Black Friday bushfires. He's seen, right throughout East Gippsland, all the major fire events which have impacted our community over the nine decades of his life. In his book he highlights again the consequences of accumulated fuel loads and the lack of consistent fuel management and fuel reduction burns in our community, and also the importance of adopting some of the practices of the Indigenous people who were here for thousands of years, long before whitefellas turned up, and who were using firestick technology to actually reduce the fuel loads. So John Mulligan advocates for communities to learn to live with good fire in the environment as a means of reducing the risk of these mega-fires which do so much damage. In closing, I thank the volunteers. I thank those who've done so much to help our community recover. But I call on the Victorian government to please do more to reduce the fuel load on public land in Victoria.
In seconding the motion from the member for Nicholls, I commend him for bringing the House's attention to the terrible events that occurred in Victoria over the January period. Now, we do live in...
In seconding the motion from the member for Nicholls, I commend him for bringing the House's attention to the terrible events that occurred in Victoria over the January period. Now, we do live in a very fire-prone environment in Victoria, and the conditions in the north-eastern and western parts of the state have been very dry. I want to commend the volunteers and the agencies involved in the suppression work and in the immediate relief and recovery efforts as well, and extend my condolences to those who have lost property in those fire events. We need to be doing more to front-end our efforts around prevention, around mitigation and around resilience when it comes to managing bushfire in the environment. We do live in a fire-prone environment in Victoria, and the risk of out-of-control blazes and the damage they can do to properties, to lives and to native animals need to be properly understood. I invite those listening to think about the components of these catastrophic events. To have a fire of this magnitude, you obviously need some sort of ignition point, and there will always be ignition points. It could be a lightning strike, it could be an accident, it could be equipment failure or it could be some idiot with a match. You also need dry, windy conditions. And low and behold, in Victoria, in summer we will have days that are dry and windy. But you also need a fuel load and that is the essence of the motion before the House today—the question of fuel load and mitigation and prevention activities. The only thing we can really control when it comes to bushfires is the temperature associated with the fuel load. If we manage the fuel load, we can just turn down the severity, turn down the temperature a bit so the damage to the environment, the damage to properties, the damage to people trying to fight these fires is minimised. We have to do more to reduce the fuel load, particularly on public land in Victoria. I've said it before that to do that you need more boots and fewer suits. That's more boots on the ground doing practical environmental work right throughout the year and fewer suits, fewer suits in Canberra and Melbourne making excuses for why the work can't be done. So I encourage the Victorian government think very, very carefully about this simple proposition: more boots, fewer suits, and undertake the fuel reduction work to keep our communities safe because people and native animals die in poorly maintained forests. We've seen it before and we'll see it again because of the neglect of the bush. One point in the motion by the member for Nicholls which is also worth reflecting on is that the shutdown of the sustainable native hardwood timber industry in Victoria has limited the capacity to fight bushfires in the state.
Flags Amendment (Protection of Australian National Flags) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Energy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The minister has had several opportunities in question time this week to explain when Australian families can expect the $275...
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The minister has had several opportunities in question time this week to explain when Australian families can expect the $275 reduction in their power bills promised by the Prime Minister. Will the minister finally admit the Prime Minister wasn't telling the truth and not a single Australian family has seen the $275 reduction? Minister, why can't anyone in the Labor Party accept responsibility and just say 'sorry' to the Australian people, who are struggling under Labor's cost-of-living crisis?
Gippsland Electorate: Roads, Cycling Without Age | Constituency Statements | House debates
'Just fix our bloody roads.' That is the constant message I'm receiving from Gippslanders. Whether it's from families, truck drivers or holidaymakers, they are coming to my office and they are...
'Just fix our bloody roads.' That is the constant message I'm receiving from Gippslanders. Whether it's from families, truck drivers or holidaymakers, they are coming to my office and they are complaining that our road network is falling apart. It's falling apart because the Labor Party, at state level and at federal level, is starving regional Victorians of road funding for maintenance and improvements to their road network. We are all expected to drive cars that are roadworthy. Surely, then, it's reasonable to expect our governments to give us roads that are car-worthy. The worst example is the Princes Highway, which is the main arterial route through Gippsland and which links our community right through to the New South Wales border. Would you believe the Albanese government has not provided a single cent in new funding for the Princes Highway in more than four years in government? This is a disgrace—not one dollar in new funding for the major highway that runs through Gippsland in four years. No wonder we are dodging potholes and the road shoulders are falling apart. It's endangering people's lives and adding to the cost-of-living pressures as people have to fix their cars because the government won't fix the roads. It gets worse. Would you believe there's unallocated funding available for the highway? Last year, Senate estimates confirmed there's $133.8 million in unallocated funding still available for use on the Princes Highway, which is money that was left in the highway fund from the previous coalition government. The work's not getting done, because the state government won't pay its share. The message is clear. Just fix the bloody roads. Cycling Without Age is a worldwide phenomenon. There are more than 3,000 chapters right around the world and 46 chapters in Australia. It was first established in 2012 in Denmark. Cycling Without Age, I'm proud to say, has been established in Gippsland through a committee that I have organised with some local volunteers. It is a social and community enterprise which is bringing people of all ages together. In particular, it's giving older Australians a chance to reduce their loneliness and social isolation. We are giving older Gippslanders the opportunity to feel the wind in their hair again, to get on a bike or on a trishaw and be treated to a ride through the streets of their towns right across Gippsland. I think it's a fantastic initiative that I'm determined to grow across the Gippsland region in the years ahead. Congratulations to Cycling Without Age Gippsland and to the volunteers who are helping us already. I look forward to many more rides as we continue to support our older members of our community.
Economy | Questions without Notice | House debates
Molineux, Ms Sophie Grace | Statements by Members | House debates
Like all members in this place, I do enjoy the opportunity to speak at my local schools on occasion. Among the key messages that I like to pass onto students is just a little reminder that you...
Like all members in this place, I do enjoy the opportunity to speak at my local schools on occasion. Among the key messages that I like to pass onto students is just a little reminder that you should never sell yourself short and never forget where you came from. I want young Gippslanders to be able to achieve their full potential in their chosen field and never to think for a second that a kid from a country town can't achieve great things in their life and do something if they just work hard and put their mind to it. And, in saying that, it brings me to a young Australian who has just been named the Australian women's cricket captain across all three forms of the game: Sophie Molineux from Bairnsdale. Sophie was born and raised in Bairnsdale. She played her first cricket as a 10-year-old alongside her father Mark, and she has been a member of the national team since 2018. But the journey for Sophie hasn't been that easy. She has sustained serious injuries during her cricket-playing career which have curtailed her opportunities to play at an international level. So I can say with great pride and great authority on behalf of all Gippslanders how excited they are to see Sophie Molineux selected as the Australian women's cricket captain across all three forms of the game. This is a young lady who has never given up, and she's never forgotten where she came from.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It speaks volumes of those opposite that not one of them has stood up, since the member for Bendigo did, to seek to defend this legislation, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism...
It speaks volumes of those opposite that not one of them has stood up, since the member for Bendigo did, to seek to defend this legislation, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, because this is bad legislation. This is bad legislation which has been rushed into the parliament, with no consultation, to solve a political problem for the Prime Minister. And that is the form of this prime minister. This year, the member for Grayndler celebrates his 30th year in parliament. The Prime Minister is the ultimate insider who is always trying to find a political solution to any problem he faces. His basic instinct after the tragedy at Bondi was to try to find a political solution, and the first scapegoat he found was the law-abiding gun owners in this country. Never forget: we have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. This prime minister has sought to distract and divide the population by pointing to gun owners now and saying, 'We have to take those guns away from you.' There has been no consultation. I've been to gun-shop owners in my electorate to ask them, 'What consultation was there with you?' How many guns is it reasonable for a person to have? You just heard the member for Dawson explain that it is reasonable for a keen licensed shooter to have multiple guns for different tasks, because different guns do different things in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. It is quite reasonable for someone who may be involved in clay-target shooting to have a shotgun for that purpose, a different shotgun for duck shooting, maybe a light-calibre rifle for control of pests like rabbits and a different calibre rifle for control of deer or pigs. Very easily, a law-abiding Australian pursuing their sport as a hunter or a sporting shooter, or just a farmer doing their job, would rapidly have half a dozen guns with no problem whatsoever. And they are no threat to the Australian public. Yet this government and this prime minister, seeking a political solution, are vilifying law-abiding Australians going about their pastime or their business and causing no harm to anyone else. This legislation enables the states to pursue a gun buyback, using $1 billion of taxpayers' money. Does anyone think a single criminal, a would-be terrorist or anyone who is a threat to society is going to roll up and hand in their gun to recover the gun buyback money from the Australian taxpayers? It is not going to achieve a single thing in terms of community safety, but it is going to divide our nation, and it is going to cause undue grief for some of our firearm owners through having to surrender guns that were very personal to them or maybe even family heirlooms. This is what we get when we have a weak and divisive prime minister who's always looking for a political solution. The real issue here was radical Islamic extremism; that was the real issue. And, for two years after the October 7 attacks, we refused—the government of our nation refused—to call out the antisemitism, to keep our Jewish Australian people safe. It was a failure of our nation that we failed to keep them safe. When the attacks occurred, instead of calling that out, instead of taking some responsibility, instead of apologising to Jewish Australians, the Prime Minister's first instinct was to go after the guns—to go after law-abiding Australians with legal guns who have done nothing wrong. They have had a gutful of being continually victimised by people who don't understand their sport and don't understand the lawful purposes for having firearms. And they are reasonable people. I say that because, if the Prime Minister had come to us and said, 'What are some reasonable changes we could make here?' there would be reasonable changes you could make. Instead, he has gone straight to the buyback, straight to taking guns off law-abiding Australians, because it's always about distraction. It's always about a political solution from a weak and divisive leader who has failed to keep Australians safe.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
In speaking in support of the Prime Minister's motion, and on behalf of Gippslanders, I want to extend my condolences to the families and the loved ones of the 15 innocent Jewish Australians who...
In speaking in support of the Prime Minister's motion, and on behalf of Gippslanders, I want to extend my condolences to the families and the loved ones of the 15 innocent Jewish Australians who were murdered at Bondi Beach in the worst terrorism attack on Australian soil. I want to commend speakers on both sides of the chamber for their contributions today, but specifically the many fine words that have been spoken by people like the member for Berowra, the member for Isaacs, the member for Wentworth and the Deputy Prime Minister. One of their central themes was that Australia has been good to the Jewish people. Australia has been a safe place—a place where Jews have not been persecuted for their faith as they have been in other parts of the world. After the horror of the Holocaust, many Jewish people came to Australia and helped to build the nation that we all enjoy today. So, yes, Australia has been good to the Jewish people, but the Jewish people have been good to Australia as well. There are so many leaders in business, in defence, in politics and in our cultural and broader civic life—the Jewish people have been good to Australia. The terrorism attack, tragically, has stoked fear and division as it undermines the Australia that we all believe in in this place. Collectively, we have failed Jewish Australians in this place. We have to accept our share of responsibility for failing to keep them safe. Self-evidently, we failed to keep them safe as they went about practising their religion and celebrating a special time in their families' lives. We have to ask the right questions. We have to learn the lessons and we have to commit ourselves to protecting the rights and the freedoms of all Australians. I think my friend the member for Berowra said it best when he told the House: Without change—without political change, without cultural change and without a reprioritisation of antisemitism as the foundational threat to this country—what we have seen will get worse. It's naive to think parliament could sit for two days and then move on as if that's enough to deal with this issue. He said: The sad reality is, if we don't change, then Bondi won't have changed anything. Bondi represents a moment of choice … The challenge for us in this place is to honour the victims, to honour the survivors, to honour the brave souls who sought to intervene as bullets were being fired at innocent people and to honour those whose lives will never be the same after that day. The way we honour them is by the actions we take in this place. Before each summer, members of parliament are offered a briefing on the upcoming summer and the natural disaster predictions from our emergency services. The briefings serve as a warning, and they urge us to take action to prepare our communities for the risk of natural disasters like fires, floods and cyclones. While the terrorism attack at Bondi Beach was not a natural disaster, make no mistake—we were warned. This is not about apportioning blame. This is about acknowledging that we were warned and that we failed to take enough action to prepare our communities. The government and the opposition were warned, and we failed to take enough action to keep Jewish Australians safe. Month after month following the 7 October attack on Israel we experienced an escalation in antisemitism, and Jewish leaders warned us that things could get worse. So, today—as we grieve for the lives cut short; as we recognise the heroic actions of citizens and first responders; as we talk about the challenges we face to restore peace, freedom and respect—we have to accept our responsibility, as elected representatives of our communities, to take more action. As Australian of the Year Neale Daniher is fond of saying, 'When all is said and done, much more is said than done.' That cannot be the case on this occasion. We owe it to the memories of the fallen to take the strong action required to keep Jewish Australians safe and protect the values that have united our nation for generations. I want my children and my grandchildren to live in a country that is good to the Jewish people. The choices we get to make in this place, the leadership we demonstrate and the action we take on the ground will decide the type of Australia we leave for our future generations. Today, we are united in grief. Tomorrow, we must be united in our action to combat hatred and antisemitism in our nation.
Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 | Statements by Members | House debates
The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 is the mean spirited bill which attempted to gut the independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. Without...
The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 is the mean spirited bill which attempted to gut the independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. Without any consultation whatsoever, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs developed a plan which had no support from day one. But everyone on that side of the House voted for it. Every one of you voted to strip away the appeal rights of Australian Defence Force personnel and our veterans while also placing a 20-year time limit on the heroic actions of our servicemen and servicewomen. This bill is a disgrace. The minister couldn't name a single veteran who supported it—not one veteran!—when he was challenged in this place. There were 75 submissions to the Senate inquiry, and 74 opposed the bill. Now, in the most humiliating retreat, the bill has been discharged from the Senate because not even Labor senators wanted to vote for it. Prime Minister, you and your minister owe our veterans an apology for the stress and anxiety you caused. Why won't you just say sorry, Prime Minister? Forget about trying to fix this disgraceful bill. Just tear it up and throw it in the bin. It's time to focus on the real issues affecting our veterans. Why won't you focus on the real issues? Oh, you can speak now, Jim Reaper? The Jim Reaper speaks, finally! Not a word on that awards tribunal—you're a chicken liver! (Time expired)
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
There was one; you're right, Member for Riverina. There was one supporting submission, and the one supporting submission—what a surprise—came from the Department of Defence. The...
There was one; you're right, Member for Riverina. There was one supporting submission, and the one supporting submission—what a surprise—came from the Department of Defence. The department that wrote the legislation was the only submitter to the Senate inquiry that could speak positively of the bill. So I make no apologies for getting angry at the dispatch box. I make no apologies for raising my concerns publicly, vociferously and in tandem with my colleagues on this side of the House, because the Department of Defence stuffed this up from day one. The Department of Defence did not consult with the tribunal, did not show any respect to ex-service organisations or stakeholders, and did not consult with the opposition, and what you ended up with was an alarming amount of stress and anxiety in the community as a direct result of the department's failure. When this legislation came to the House it was telling that among the 90-plus members of the Labor Party the minister and one other member spoke on it—just two of them. They were only two they could find willing to speak on the legislation. I'm glad the decision was made to discharge the legislation from the Senate. I say to the minister—don't bring it back in its current form. Don't even think about bringing it back with a 20-year time limit and don't even think about bringing it back with restrictions on who can seek a review, because we will have this fight all over again, and I know what the Australian people think about putting a time limit on 'We will remember them'. We are here as an opposition to work with the government where we can, as we have with this legislation here today. We stand ready to support urgent, meaningful reforms that deliver better outcomes for veterans and their families, and I look forward to working in the spirit of collaboration, particularly around the recommendations of the royal commission. I think it's going to need a bipartisan commitment to make it happen. It's going to need a bipartisan commitment to force Treasury and Finance to do the right thing and spend some money where it needs to be spent. I'll finish on that point, and on a more hopeful note that, wherever possible, we will seek bipartisanship on issues affecting our veterans. I acknowledge and say respectfully to any veterans who are listening today, or their family members, thank you for your service. Thank you for your service to our country. Thank you to your families who supported you in that service. Without you, Australia would be a less safe place to live. Without your service and sacrifice, we wouldn't enjoy the freedoms that we enjoy today. We respect and value that, and we will continue to work together in this place as much as we possibly can to ensure you are properly supported in service and in your retirement. I thank the House.
I say at the outset that the coalition will be supporting the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill. I would like to acknowledge the presence of...
I say at the outset that the coalition will be supporting the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill. I would like to acknowledge the presence of the minister in the chamber today as well and make this simple point: wherever possible, the coalition will follow a principle of bipartisanship on issues impacting our veterans and their families. That's a longstanding principle, I think, on both sides of the chamber, in fact, that, where possible, the major parties in this place have worked together to try to improve the system of support for veterans and their families. I encourage the government to continue to work with the opposition in that regard and in that spirit going forward. Like the Labor Party, as the previous speaker indicated, we believe, on this side of the House, that we have a proud record in terms of working to reform the system of support for veterans and their families. While in office, the coalition parties worked diligently with the Department of Veterans' Affairs on a wide range of reforms to improve the system and make it fit for purpose for the modern-day veterans. One of the challenges in this portfolio, in this space, is acknowledging that the needs of different generations of veterans are very different. It's very tempting, when you see our men and women in uniform, to think that they're all the same. They kind of look the same in their different uniforms of Navy, Army and Air Force, but beating beneath the surface of the uniform is a heart and a soul of an individual person who may have different needs when they leave the Defence Force. Making sure that our system of support is fit for purpose for all generations of veterans is one of the critical challenges facing this chamber and this government and that has faced previous governments. I want to commend the minister for his endeavours in that regard. We recognise, on this side of the House—as the minister himself has recognised on many occasions—that more needs to be done to make the system fit for purpose for our modern veterans in particular. During our time in government, the coalition released what was known as the veterans covenant. There is an important line in the veterans covenants that says: For what they have done, this we will do. That goes beyond just saying, 'Thank you for your service,' on Anzac Day or Remembrance Day. 'For what they have done, this we will do,' is a commitment that we make to the men and women of Australia who haven't served in uniform. It's a commitment that we make that we will support them in and after their service. It's timely that we have this conversation and debate today because, more and more, there is a narrative in the community that military service inevitably results in a person being broken or busted, and it's simply not true. Just this week in parliament, the Prime Minister's National Veteran Employment Awards were hosted in the Great Hall. It was a celebration of veterans who have served our nation with distinction, transitioned well and then brought their skills to bear in the civilian environment. It's so critical that we challenge this narrative that military service inherently results in a person having long-term problems for life. There is no doubt that the unique nature of military service exposes people to risk every day—during training or deployment. But, equally, we have an obligation under this covenant—'For what they have done, this we will do'—to make sure that we recruit well, train them well and give them the equipment they need to do their job well and to make sure that, when they deploy, they are properly supported and that, when they transition, they transition in the best possible shape to go on and lead fulfilling lives in the civilian environment. What the veteran employment awards do is celebrate those successes and recognise that, on transition, so many of our veterans go on to make an enormous contribution to our wider community. This is a critical point because the skills are transferable. The skills that our men and women in uniform learn in leadership, teamwork and problem solving are transferable to civilian life. Our message to Australian employers in the private sector is: Why wouldn't you want to employ a veteran? Why wouldn't you want those skills in your business? That message has to be reinforced as much as it possibly can. In the presence of the minister, it's good to reflect on the role he and I have shared. Being the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has been, without doubt, the highlight of my time in this place. While I served in more senior roles in cabinet with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport role, the role in veterans' affairs is deeply personal. It is a role where you get to make a difference in people's lives with the decisions you make. It gets to the point where you're actually dealing with individuals and working with the secretary of your department and senior DVA staff to achieve outcomes which make a real difference in people's lives. I was very fortunate during my time in the role to work with Liz Cosson, who has since retired. Liz worked tirelessly as the secretary of the department to reform the Department of Veterans' Affairs by making some steps forward in reducing the complexity of issues, particularly around claims, but also in ensuring that the benefits available to veterans were well advertised so that veterans knew support was available if and when they needed it. I say to the minister that I recognise that, when it comes to reform, all the easy stuff has probably been done. Everything now is hard. Everything in politics today around reform and making changes is difficult. But the goal of having a system which is easier to navigate and doesn't disenfranchise veterans and their families is a goal well worth pursuing, and I encourage him and the government in those endeavours. Equally, I encourage the volunteers—the ex-service organisations, the people who care enough about our veteran community to be bothered to join their RSL or other ex-service organisation—to get involved in advocacy and support through practical programs. The work you're doing is deeply appreciated by the members in this place. I commit myself and the opposition to work as much as we possibly can in a collaborative way to address the challenges that we know still exist, particularly as the minister and the government seek to implement the findings of the royal commission. So, again, we do need to challenge the narrative that our veterans are all broken and busted. If we feed them a diet of helplessness and hopelessness, it reduces our capacity to tackle the big issue in this place—the issue of suicide. There is no acceptable level of suicide in our community and there is certainly no acceptable level of suicide when it comes to our veteran community. We know that too many veterans are taking their own lives, and there are complex reasons for that. There are a range of factors which play into that horrible decision, that lack of hope, which results in a person taking their own life. But there is more we can do in this place and in the community on a daily basis, and the coalition certainly commits itself to working with the minister as we strive to reduce the level of suicide in our veteran community to zero. This bill makes the technical and administrative updates needed to prepare for the start of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025, or the VETS Act, as it is colloquially referred to. The coalition supported the VETS Act when it passed parliament earlier this year because it delivers on what we hope will be a simplification of the veterans' compensation and rehabilitation system, which was recommended by the royal commission. Over a period of a few years, we worked to try to simplify and harmonise the three existing acts. I've never been engaged in any other area of public policy where a person seeking a benefit from the government is required to have an advocate to navigate their way through the system. The system is too complex, and the complexity came about, I think, for very well-meaning reasons. I think every generation of minister who took on this role wanted to do something more to support our veterans, and we ended up having three very complex acts to the point where one veteran could have injuries to different parts of their body eligible for a benefit under different acts if they'd served over a longer period of time. So it is quite a cumbersome system. It causes frustration. It causes delays. I think harmonisation is a goal well worth pursuing, and I commend the government and the department for working towards having, from 1 July 2026, a single piece of legislation for all new claims for compensation and rehabilitation. It will—and I say this touching wood!—hopefully make the system easier for our veterans and reduce the need for advocates to try and navigate the system that we have today. We don't want to see any veterans losing any entitlements in the process. The legislation today is not a new policy proposal; it's building on the existing work that the government did earlier this year with the VETS Act. It provides the guarantee—and this is important—that veterans with existing claims under VEA or DRCA will keep every right-of-review option they currently have. We are reassured by the briefing we received from the minister's office that nothing will be taken away from veterans in that regard. It also gives the department and the Repatriation Commission the powers they need to continue making decisions during the transition so veterans aren't left in limbo while the new system is put in place. So this is, by any definition, a non-controversial piece of legislation, as it doesn't cut or alter a single payment or benefit. It simply makes sure that what parliament already passed in the VETS Act can operate as intended in the future. In relation to the broader challenges facing our veteran community, I commend this legislation because I actually believe it builds on the coalition's record in government and the direction we were seeking to take under the previous secretary. I think there is an evolution here, rather than a revolution, and we are seeing constant improvement in trying to reduce the time taken to process claims and also in ensuring that veterans know where to go for help if they need it and getting that help to flow as quickly as possible. During our time in government, the coalition delivered on average more than $11 billion per year in support for veterans and their families. We need to keep working to dispel the myth amongst some people that help is not available, because help is available. Help is available for our veterans and their families if they know where to seek it, so we encourage people to seek help in that regard. We also established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide, recognising the urgent need for transparency, accountability and reform in the system. In government, the coalition introduced and passed the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Act of 2019 and the accompanying veterans' covenant, veteran card and lapel pin, ensuring national recognition for service and sacrifice. That may seem like a small change, but the lapel pin has given many of our veterans a capacity to wear proudly on a daily basis the same sorts of pins that members of the House of Representatives wear when they come to work. I've seen that lapel pin worn in offices across Australia over the last five years. We have people in our country who are fortunate enough and have worked hard enough to receive an Order of Australia or some other recognition. The veteran lapel pin is just one way to recognise that a person has contributed something to our nation while wearing the uniform. So I encourage veterans to wear the pin if they're comfortable doing so. In government, we provided free, non-liability mental health care for any veteran who had completed at least one day of full-time service, which removed the barriers to early support and recovery. We also sought to expand and modernise Open Arms, the veterans and families counselling service, and ensure it remained fit for purpose and accessible to all those who needed it. One of the key features it performed was to provide people with lived experience to work with our veterans. Open Arms having staff members with lived experience has made it far more effective in recent years. One program which I'm particularly proud of and somewhat obsessed with—the minister probably thinks—is the Psychiatric Assistance Dog Program, which was an initiative that took a bit of convincing through the finance department. One day, if I ever bother to write a book, I will cover that chapter with some degree of glee—how we may have pulled the wool over the eyes of finance for once in our lives. The program provided Australians who were eligible with tailored, life-changing therapy dogs. The program, from the feedback I've received from veterans, has probably been in my time in this place one of the most personally rewarding. I have received messages and cards, sometimes from veterans but often from their partners, that explain how having a therapy dog has changed their lives, how having a therapy dog has meant that their veteran partner was now able to take the kids out for a walk to the playground, and how having a therapy dog has meant that their veteran partner now goes shopping or to a restaurant with them. These are things that we take for granted when we have good mental health. We have found life-changing therapy through the Psychiatric Assistance Dog Program, which has also meant there is less dependence on pharmaceuticals and a reduction in alcohol consumption. These are anecdotes; I acknowledge that. I'd like to see more work done in that regard to have the evidence based research to see exactly how this program is working going forward, and whether we can commit more funding to it and whether we need to do more work in that area. How these dogs are changing lives, I think, is something that we need to perhaps understand, because there are other therapies that came forward during my time in the role where I couldn't convince the bureaucrats to commit money to, but I think they would inevitably do so in the future. There are other emerging therapies in areas like equine therapy, art therapy, music therapy and surf therapy. There are a whole range of things in this space which work for individuals beyond the Psychiatric Assistance Dog Program. So I think there's some more work we can do in terms of research but also understanding what works for individual veterans and being willing to run trials and pilot programs to ensure that we can help more veterans into the future—particularly our younger veterans, who may well respond to different treatments or therapies in comparison to the older cohorts. Also in government, we started the Veteran Wellbeing Centre Program. The first six veteran wellbeing centres were initiated by the coalition, and I know the minister has built on the wellbeing centres across the country since his time in the role. We established the Prime Minister's National Veteran Employment Awards, which I spoke about previously, and it's good to see it continue to celebrate the successes of our veterans on transition. Interestingly, we created a role which, I think, was the brainchild of Secretary Cosson, which was the veterans family advocate role. Ensuring that the voices of families were heard in every major policy decision was a deliberate act of the previous government. Our first veterans family advocate was a lady by the name of Gwen Cherne. Gwen has just retired from her role and has moved on to other duties. Gwen did an outstanding job as the veterans family advocate. She had experience as a military partner but also as the mother of a serving member. Her lived experience was crucial to her being accepted by the veteran community and the families. She provided some unique insights for the secretary and me during her time in the role. I'm pleased to see the new veteran family advocate, Annabelle Wilson, start in the role. I've had the chance to meet with Annabelle on two occasions. She's an impressive young lady, who I think will build on the legacy of Gwen Cherne. I think that Annabelle, again, has the capacity to help the government, help the department and help the minister. She has insights there that I think will be very useful. One of the strongest features of both Gwen and Annabelle is they recognise that parts of DVA are still broken. But, rather than get angry and throw bombs from outside the tent, they've been prepared to get inside the tent and try and fix it. So I commend not only Gwen for her work in the past but also Annabelle for taking on what is a challenging role. It's a high-profile, challenging role, and I wish her every success in taking it on. The previous government also committed $500 million to the Australian War Memorial redevelopment, which will ensure the stories of contemporary veterans are told with the respect and visibility they deserve. That was also somewhat contentious at the time, but, I must say, the director, Matt Anderson, carrying on the work of Brendan Nelson, has continued to ensure that the War Memorial is not a place where we glorify war; it is a place where we respectfully recognise and commemorate the men and women who have given their lives to allow us to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy today. Those 102,000 names on the roll of honour are a reminder to us all that the price of our freedom has been paid with the blood of previous generations. To have that War Memorial be in a better position now to tell the stories of the modern generation of servicemen and women is so important not only for their mental wellbeing but also for our nation to understand that service, so I don't quibble for a second the $500 million that has gone into that program. I stress in making that point that not a cent of that $500 million came out of the DVA budget. That was new funding allocated by Treasury. It did not come at the expense of our veterans, but that $500 million has ensured that the War Memorial for decades and decades and decades to come will be in a better position to tell the story of the men and women who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Timor Leste, Solomon Islands—you name it. More recent conflicts and peacekeeping missions will be properly recognised in the redeveloped Australian War Memorial. I congratulate Matt Anderson for the work his team does. I pass onto them our respect and our appreciation for the way they welcome members of parliament to attend the last post ceremony, to attend commemorative events. They are always run incredibly professionally with a sombre but respectful mood. I congratulate Matt on the work he is doing in that regard and I look forward to the finalisation of the War Memorial redevelopment. The previous government also established the Joint Transition Authority, which is important in holding Defence to account for supporting members from their admission through to their civilian life. There is more to be done there. As I remarked earlier, all the easy stuff is done. The Joint Transition Authority and the work on transition is unfinished business. We still need to make sure our veterans, when they are leaving Defence, are in the best possible shape—physically, emotionally and financially—to take on their next posting in life in the civilian world. We are still getting it wrong on transition too many times, so I encourage the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to keep up the work in that regard. We have to ensure that if we are going to be consistent with the covenant of 'For what they have done, this we will do' then we have to ensure that transition to civilian life is as smooth as possible and that we give them every chance of success as they take up their next role in our community. The previous government delivered provisional access to medical treatment. I think the government should ensure that program continues. It allows veterans to continue to receive health care while their claims are being assessed. We have increased the fees for health professionals treating our veterans, which helps to sustain access to quality health care under the DVA system. But again, since our time in office, the gap between the payments received for the treating of veterans compared to treating other clients has widened again. It is a challenge for our government; it is a challenge for this government. That gap becomes a disincentive for our health professionals to actually treat veterans. We have to find a way to close the gap because the giant in the room of the care economy and the NDIS is paying at a higher rate to see clients than what DVA currently offers. It is not offered as a criticism of the minister or the government because the gap was there. When we left government, we had some step-up payments to try and narrow the gap to make it more attractive to health professionals to treat our veterans but the gap is still there and it is becoming a problem again. I say to DVA: for god's sake, try to reduce the paperwork because the allied health professionals and GPs are all saying the same thing—'We are busy people. We cannot spend all day filling out your paperwork, so try and find ways to minimise the paperwork and make it more attractive for our health professionals to treat our veterans when required.' In government, we did something in 2021 which I think will be more helpful to this minister and future ministers than it necessarily was to me at the time. We asked a question in the census about whether they had ever served in the Australian Defence Force. It came about because basically we had no idea how many veterans we had in Australia. Unless someone had served and then registered with DVA, we as a government had no idea how many veterans we really had. It turned out we had, I think, around 600,000 at the time, and that data will help the minister in terms of targeting support measures to regional hotspots, or places where we know there are a large cohorts of veterans, and will make sure that the limited resources we have can be directed in the most appropriate way. There is more to be done. I acknowledge that this bill here today and the VETS Act are important, but there's more to be done. We are going to continue to monitor closely the government's claims around claims processing times because we are hearing different reports from our veterans on the ground in terms of whether there has been a shifting of the claims into a new basket or there has actually been a reduction in the time taken to process claims. The government must continue to act, and act faster, on the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and to the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance I say give the minister the resources he needs to implement the findings of that royal commission. It's one thing to have a royal commission, but the history of royal commissions in this country is that the royal commission is held, the recommendations come in and then they sit there and sit there and sit there. Some of those recommendations will require additional resources for the veterans portfolio, and I urge the Treasurer and the finance minister to act quickly in that regard. Funding for veterans and families hubs has not been guaranteed, and it's something that veterans are coming to us and raising concerns about—whether they will be able to operate those hubs in the future. In conclusion, while I started with the point that, wherever possible, the coalition adopts the principle of bipartisanship in relation to matters involving our veterans and the Australian Defence Force, the government made a mistake with the mean spirited bill to try and address what they thought were shortcomings in the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. Mistakes were made from the very moment that Defence did not consult. I actually don't blame the minister for what followed in the months after that, because I think he was sold a pup from day one. Defence did not consult with the tribunal itself. An independent statutory authority was established by the Labor Party in 2011 to provide a review function for the greatest acts of heroism our nation has ever seen, and the defence department didn't consult with the highly skilled and highly respected individuals on that tribunal to see what changes would be palatable, what changes were worth pursuing and, more importantly, what changes were completely unsellable to the Australian public. It was mean spirited from day one for Defence to try to impose a 20-year time limit on the review of actions by our Australian Defence Force personnel. It was also mean spirited from day one to seek to abolish the right of current Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans to seek a review unless they fit within a very tight descriptor provided by Defence itself. I say to the government, in the spirit of bipartisanship and in seeking to find in-principle agreement wherever possible on veterans and defence matters, we should have been consulted earlier in the process, the tribunal should have been consulted and ex-service organisations should have been consulted. We then would never have had the mess that we've had over the last three months, with veterans and Defence Force personnel speaking out angrily about the reform of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. There were 75 submissions to the Senate inquiry. How many do you reckon might have been in favour of the changes?
Mallacoota-Genoa Road | Statements by Members | House debates
This is a section of the Mallacoota-Genoa Road. I picked it up on the weekend, and I brought it with me here to parliament this week, because I wanted to prove a point. Our roads in Victoria are...
This is a section of the Mallacoota-Genoa Road. I picked it up on the weekend, and I brought it with me here to parliament this week, because I wanted to prove a point. Our roads in Victoria are falling apart, and the state Labor Party is doing nothing about it. Now notice the white line on this bit of road. It's important to acknowledge that, because that means that the side of the road has fallen off. You now have a small cliff. If people towing boats, towing caravans, drop a wheel over the side, they are in peril of losing their lives. This crumbling road has no shoulders. It's dangerous and is putting the lives of locals and visitors at risk. Worse than that is that more than four years ago, in May 2021, I secured $10 million from the previous federal government, as part of the Black Spots Program, to upgrade this road—the only access road between Mallacoota and Genoa—and we are still waiting, more than four years later, for the Victorian government to spend a single dollar on the actual road. How can it be possible that it takes more than four years to spend the $10 million provided by the Commonwealth to upgrade the highest priority project in the Mallacoota-Genoa area? It's incompetence on a grand scale. Lives are being put at risk. The road is falling apart. I plead with Victorian government: just fix the bloody road.
Remembrance Day, Australian War Memorial | Constituency Statements | House debates
The coalition associates itself with the kind remarks of the member for Aston upon the death of Ben and sends our best wishes to his family as well. The Great War was meant to be the war to end...
The coalition associates itself with the kind remarks of the member for Aston upon the death of Ben and sends our best wishes to his family as well. The Great War was meant to be the war to end all wars. Across the world, somewhere between 15 and 22 million people were killed. Of those, 9½ million were service personnel. Six million Allied service personnel died during the Great War and, tragically for our own great nation of Australia, there were 60,000 fatalities. Many more returned home carrying the battle scars and the mental health impacts for the rest of their lives. But on 11 November at 11 am in 1918, the guns fell silent on the Western Front. Each year, our nation stops on 11 November. We observe a minute's silence out of respect and in solemn commemoration of those who lost their lives. It was originally known as Armistice Day, but became known as Remembrance Day after World War II to respect all who have died in conflicts. Throughout our nation's short history, 102,000 service men and women have died defending the freedoms that we all enjoy here today. On Remembrance Day, we will remember them. I often tell school children when they visit Parliament House that our most important building in Canberra is actually the Australian War Memorial. I'm very proud to have been part of a government which delivered $500 million for the redevelopment of the War Memorial. It is a legacy from the coalition government that will allow us to tell the stories of more modern conflicts and peacekeeping missions at a time when those veterans and their families are still able to appreciate it. What's concerning me, though, right now is that the Albanese government has actually failed to announce new members of the Australian War Memorial governing body and veterans are increasingly nervous about why these delays are in place. Now is not the time for a half-strength governing body at our most important national institution where we respect, recognise and commemorate our service men and women. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:30 to 11:38 With major development work underway and sensitive issues to be resolved, veterans want to know that the War Memorial will be governed by a balanced and respectful council. The Australian War Memorial Council members whose time expired in September included highly regarded veterans like Dan Keighran VC and Sharon Bown, former RSL national president Greg Melick and political leaders Tony Abbott and Kim Beazley. We need to know that we will have a well-balanced Australian War Memorial Council with the skills, experience and wisdom to make sensible decisions, in a bipartisan way, which are in the national interest. I've written to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to seek an explanation for the delays and to offer my personal input into ensuring appointments to the council are non-controversial. The Australian War Memorial Council is not a place for activists or for rewarding political mates with no particular interest in defence or the veteran community.
Regional Australia | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
They were big businesses when we were in government!
Albanese Government: Rural and Regional Australia | Statements by Members | House debates
I want to talk about the difference between fantasy and reality. On election night the Prime Minister promised that he would govern for all Australians. He promised that no-one would be left...
I want to talk about the difference between fantasy and reality. On election night the Prime Minister promised that he would govern for all Australians. He promised that no-one would be left behind. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has this on her website: The Australian Government is committed to investing in Australia's regions to create jobs, build opportunity and unlock economic growth and productivity. It's a fantasy! The reality is cuts to regional development programs. We've seen this minister for infrastructure and transport cut the Roads of Strategic Importance program, cut the Building Better Regions Fund, cut the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program and cut the Community Development Grants program. We see the difference between fantasy and reality. The fantasy is she says she's going to invest in regional communities and the reality is she's going to cut the programs. Actually, that's not entirely true. She hasn't just cut our programs; this minister is so good that she cut her own program! She created the Growing Regions program, and, after two years, cut that as well. What sort of minister can claim to represent regional areas when, after she has finished cutting coalition programs, she cuts her own program as well? All I can say is: be careful, Australia. Be careful when you're deciphering the comments of the Prime Minister and the infrastructure minister to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. The fantasy is: when this Prime Minister says no-one will be left behind, regional Australians know he's making it up. (Time expired)