House debates
Wednesday, 3 September 2025
Bills
Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail
5:41 pm
Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source
I ask this question of any member in the House: what were you doing when you were 18 or 19? I can tell you what I was doing, and I think the member for Gippsland was probably doing the same, because he's about the same vintage: rat-tat-tatting away on a typewriter, producing stories for a newspaper. What we weren't doing was rat-tat-tatting away with a gun. What we certainly weren't doing was hanging off an Oerlikon 20-millimetre cannon and firing away.
Teddy Sheean was doing that. Richard Norden was going across no-man's-land, again and again, to rescue comrades. Teddy Sheean, from the Navy, was 18 years young—just 18. It was 1 December 1942; it was the Battle of Timor. He was a Tasmanian—one of the bravest the island state has ever produced. Eighteen years! Richard Norden was 19. As in that famous song by Redgum, he was only 19. They were teenagers, mere boys, lads. As I said, Sheean fought in the Battle of Timor in 1942 and Richard Norden was in the Battle of Coral-Balmoral on 14 May 1968. Years on—decades, in fact—from their gallant actions, those two were justifiably, deservedly awarded Victoria Crosses for Australia—well, their families were, because Teddy and Richard, better known as Dick, were no longer with us. Teddy died on that day; we lost him. Dick died serving in the Australian Capital Territory Police Force, on Hindmarsh Drive in a motorcycle accident at just 24. He continued to serve, even though his days in the khaki were over.
Teddy was given what's called a Mention in Despatches. A Distinguished Conduct Medal was presented, at the time, to Dick. These were honourable awards and very well deserved, but they weren't what they should have received. What they should have received was a VC. We don't present VCs lightly in this country, nor should we, but, when we do, it's special. When we do, all the nation knows that that person, through their deeds of valour, through placing their life on the line and through their gallant actions, has saved others, has won the day and in some cases—in many cases—has caused the loss of their own life. We don't give them out lightly.
Then, of course, we had the 10 members of D Company from Long Tan. Their actions were on 18 August 1966. They were also given medallic recognition years after—half a century after, in fact—their gallant deeds. Yet now we're being told by the minister that all of those dozen awards would not have been awarded in the future. Why? It's a really easy question, but I just don't know why. I've been administering many portfolios. I've been lucky enough to do so. I know departments will often bring you their letters, their recommendations, their suggestions. You don't have to accept them all the time! You can say no—send them packing! You'll often get bureaucrats, public servants and unelected officials wanting you to change legislation. 'No' is an easy word to say when it's a dumb piece of legislation. That's what this is.
Minister, will World War II veterans or Vietnam veterans or Korea veterans have review rights under this bill that you are proposing? Will they? Why, Minister? Why? I just don't understand it. I'm a voice of what I'm sure will be many veterans and many RSL clubs. Good luck when you and members of the Labor Party who've already voted against this go out on any given commemorative day in the future. Good luck. Why, Minister?
No comments