Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 16), omit "subsections (2) to (9)", substitute "subsections (6) and (9)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 19) to page 5 (line 27), omit subsections 110V(2) to (5).

(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 5) to page 6 (line 24), omit subsections 110V(7) and (8).

(4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 32), after item 8, insert:

8A After section 110V

Insert:

110VAAA Notification of review rights

If a reviewable decision is made, the decision maker must, in writing, notify any person who is affected by the decision of the effect of sections 110VA and 110VAA.

(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 33) to page 9 (line 24), omit the item, substitute:

9 After section 110VA

Insert:

110VAA Time limit for making an application for review

(1) An application for review of a reviewable decision can only be made within:

(a) 6 months after the day the applicant is given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision; or

(b) if the Tribunal is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that exceptional circumstances exist—such longer period as the Tribunal allows.

(2) However, an application for review of a reviewable decision can be made at any time (subject to this Part) if the applicant is not given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision.

Lest we forget—just three words, but three extraordinarily powerful words. It is the solemn promise we all make to acknowledge and respect the service of Australian Defence Force personnel and our veterans community. The sentence before that is equally poignant. The words are 'we will remember them'. Those words don't come with a use-by date. There's no caveat. There's no 'we will remember them sometimes' or 'we will remember them as long as it happened in the last 20 years'. We will remember them.

Under this legislation, the government is proposing that we will only remember them, we will only recognise their incredible service, if the action occurred in the past 20 years. That is exactly what this legislation proposes in terms of major medallic recognition of acts of bravery and gallantry that have quite rightly been reviewed by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal over the last 14 years and have resulted in some of the most celebrated Australians receiving due recognition decades—decades—after their brave action. But what this government is trying to do is cut this off at 20 years, saying, 'If your action didn't occur as Australian Defence Force personnel in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force in a more convenient timeframe for us—say, the last 20 years—I'm sorry, but you can't review any decision made by the Department of Defence in relation to honours of such great national significance.'

This is the most extraordinary overreach by the Department of Defence, and it has found a compliant minister to come in here with a rubbish piece of legislation that should not have seen the light of day. I'm sure the Department of Defence could not believe their luck when this government said, 'We'll run this one out for you and see how we go.'

But the legislation presented to us last Thursday, with no consultation, failed at the first test, and every speaker on this side of the House has recognised it. It is a solution trying to find a problem. The member for Indi pointed it out: 'What is the government trying to fix? What's broken?' Other crossbenchers spoke, and members of the Liberal Party and the National Party spoke, but the Labor MPs were missing in action. Now, on this side of the House, we know there are a lot of you. We sit here and we know there are a lot of you. You had a lot of choices—you had more than 90 choices, in fact—and you could only find one person brave enough to back up the minister, and that was the poor first-termer from Sturt! Was there a ballot? Did she get the short straw? How did this poor member for Sturt cop the short straw and have to turn up here? When the division was called this morning on the second reading motion, 90 turned up to vote. They were all here. But then they were missing in action. They had no intention of defending this pitiful piece of legislation, because they know how poorly it will be regarded by their veterans, by their service personnel and by the families in their own communities.

I say to those opposite: before you voted, you should have read the bill. You should have had a good look at it, because I can tell you now that, if you'd read the bill, you wouldn't have turned up here and voted for it. The minister knows there's been no consultation with the major veterans groups, he knows that the Australian Defence Force personnel do not support this bill, he knows the families will be furious, and yet somehow he's convinced his colleagues to come and vote for it. They heard the bells, ran in here, voted and had no idea what they had just voted for.

There would be no shame in the minister withdrawing this bill. There would be no shame in that whatsoever, because he has not given any explanation as to what he is seeking to fix with the legislation before the House today.

See this speech in context