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

I welcome the opportunity to speak in relation to the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. Firstly, I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025

(Mr Chester)

(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.

Now, wherever possible, the coalition will seek to find some common ground and a bipartisan position on veterans issues but, sadly, not on this occasion. The opposition is moving amendments today in relation to the key reforms as outlined in the minister's second reading speech because, quite frankly, he has made no case for change to the operation of a tribunal which has operated effectively for the past 14 years and was actually created by the former Labor government. Quite simply, the legislation before the House is stripping rights from Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families.

From my direct experience as the former minister, this tribunal has acted diligently, professionally and with the utmost integrity. I say at the outset, I have literally no idea why the Labor Party has blundered down this pathway without any consultation or any input from this side of the House, the veteran community, their families, historians or any other interested parties. Even worse, the minister's second reading speech was deceptive and selective, even pretending the tribunal had called for these proposed changes. The only organisation that would support this unwelcome intrusion into the independence of this statutory agency would be the defence department, because it has never accepted the principle that a tribunal should be allowed to review decisions of senior officers, particularly in relation to honours for gallantry.

This legislation appears to me an example of a government which has run out of puff in just four months. It is a solution looking for a problem. As a former minister, I'm not aware of any stakeholders—again, apart from senior Defence officers—who are critical of the current operations of the tribunal. In fact, it's quite the opposite. In my experience, the members of the tribunal have always acted with incredible diligence, professionalism and integrity. They have taken their job over the past 14 years very seriously. They have weighed up often very complex issues, carefully considered the consequences of their recommendations and then made recommendations which were both balanced and responsible. It's not like this tribunal have been handing out medals without giving due consideration to the many complex issues that they have encountered over the years.

In his second reading speech, the minister claims:

… it is necessary to ensure that the tribunal remains fit for purpose and to address a number of concerns that have been raised by the tribunal itself—

and then proceeds to give absolutely no examples of any concerns raised by the tribunal itself.

In fact, it's quite the opposite. The tribunal actually gave evidence to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system that it was strongly opposed to the key change proposed in this legislation before the chamber today. In relation to Defence's proposal to introduce a 20-year time limit for tribunal reviews, the tribunal actually expressed its strong opposition to and significant concerns for that proposal. The tribunal went on to explain that it would render invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by the tribunal between 2020 and 2023 and said in its submission:

… if implemented, would be to abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award.

This is the crux of the coalition's opposition to the bill before the House today. It actually seeks to curtail the rights of Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families simply because Defence doesn't like this tribunal. Defence gave evidence at the same Senate inquiry and recommended changes to the tribunal, and the minister has blindly followed that advice. Again, it is contrary to the evidence given at the inquiry, which stated the establishment of the tribunal to consider unsuccessful awards and honours nominations was a unique feature of the Australian system and provided an additional level of accountability. Evidence to the Senate inquiry showed support for and confidence in the work of the tribunal, and, again, I quote the report, which said:

Overwhelmingly, inquiry participants valued the independent nature of the tribunal, its impartiality and its considered approach when handling review applications.

Despite the lack of evidence that the tribunal's current standing rules have been abused by the public, the Albanese government is acting to totally abolish the current rights of ADF members, veterans and their families through this bill. They are taking away the right of Australians to register legitimate appeals against the refusal of a defence honour. What concerns me the most is, if the minister had a single ounce of decency, he would have undertaken a proper consultation process. He would have realised in about a minute that he had been sold a pup by the Department of Defence.

Defence initiated this legislation. Defence wrote the legislation. Defence has finally found a minister compliant enough to bring it to the chamber, and here we are today, debating a bill that should never have seen the light of day, particularly in the aftermath of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It is staggering that this government is taking action which actually disenfranchises serving men and women at this most sensitive of times. They're actually disenfranchising serving men and women and our veterans' community. This is worse than a solution looking for a problem; this legislation will actually create problems. It will add to the existing distrust between some veterans and Defence, and it actually undermines the integrity of a statutory agency which, I repeat, the Labor Party established in 2011.

On that point: for those who are not familiar with this particular tribunal, it was formed by the Gillard Labor government in 2011, with a capacity to review decisions regarding honours and awards. It can also be directed by the minister of the day to undertake inquiries on his or her behalf. As a statutory agency, it was intended to act independently of government. That is the critical point. It is meant to be independent of government, and it has the capacity to review decisions dating back to 1939, which obviously coincides with the start of World War II. Throughout the past 14 years, the tribunal undertook 483 reviews, and, on 283 occasions, it upheld the decision made by Defence. But, on 136 occasions, it put forward recommendations to change the decision of Defence. It seems to me like the tribunal is working.

Importantly, the tribunal's recommendations are a matter for the minister of the day to then consider. Deputy Speaker Young, I know you are someone who takes a great deal of interest in the recognition of our service men and women. There have been several particularly high-profile cases which have warranted careful consideration by the tribunal as reviewable decisions. Let's take the example of Teddy Sheean, the first naval servicemen to receive a VC, and, to quote from the citation regarding his actions in December 1942, it said:

Ordinary Seaman Sheean's actions disrupted and distracted the enemy from strafing and killing his defenceless shipmates in the water. He sacrificed his life trying to save his shipmates and, despite his wounds, he continued firing the gun until the ship sank and took him to his death. His pre-eminent act of valour and most conspicuous gallantry saved Australian lives. His heroism became the standard to which the men and women of the Australian Defence Force aspire.

An amazing, amazing Australian.

Then we have Private Richard Norden, whose gallant actions occurred in May 1968. Within his citation, it was said:

Private Norden killed one North Vietnamese Army soldier whilst moving forward and, having expended his ammunition, recovered that enemy's automatic weapon which he used against further North Vietnamese Army soldiers.

He then half-carried, half-dragged the severely wounded Section Commander back to the section.

Private Norden, seriously wounded, again advanced to the forward scout. He pressed forward under enemy fire and reached the scout, killing the North Vietnamese Army soldier who had been using the scout as a shield. Having determined that the scout was dead, Private Norden returned to the section to collect grenades and moved forward for a third time. He cleared the area to enable the body of the scout to be recovered.

Private Norden showed a complete disregard for his own personal safety, and his courage and selfless acts resulted in the enemy position being secured and likely saved the lives of other members of the platoon.

Again, another extraordinary Australian has been recognised for his actions.

Then there's the celebrated outcome for Delta Company after a long—when we're talking 'long', we're talking decades—battle for recognition by company commander Harry Smith, recognition that would not have been possible without the tribunal's involvement. On 18 August 1966, members of D Company, who were outnumbered 20 to one, fought against the odds to defeat the enemy at Long Tan. Eighteen Australians were killed, and more were wounded, but for half a century many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for that recognition. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the action that 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery.

The reason I raise those three cases as examples is that, under this legislation before the House today, those men never would have received the bravery medals they were rightfully due, because this government wants to place an unrealistic and unfair time limit on the review of honours and awards. The cases would not have been able to be assessed by the tribunal, because they occurred outside the 20-year time limit that this government is seeking to impose on Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families. In all of these cases, Defence opposed any changes to the medallic recognition of the individuals involved. Under the Albanese government's proposed changes that I've just described, none of these celebrated Australian servicepeople would have achieved the justice they deserved, as, again, their actions fall outside the 20-year time limit that would be imposed by this bill.

There's a fair bit of hypocrisy in this place, and this bill is right up there in it. In opposition, Labor were very happy to play politics with the Sheean case and they publicly demanded a VC for his heroic actions after the tribunal made its recommendations. The then opposition leader and now prime minister, Anthony Albanese, led the charge. So it's quite hypocritical of them when you consider the impact of the changes that his cabinet has put before the House today. Again, under these changes, the Labor Party would never have been able to deliver medallic recognition for Teddy Sheean and his family, because the tribunal would have been prevented from reviewing the decision made by Defence in the first place. We need to be very clear about this. The changes proposed today have been drafted by Defence. They are being driven by Defence, and the interests of veterans and the tribunal itself are secondary to those of this government, this minister and this prime minister.

If the House needs any proof that Defence never wants this tribunal correcting its homework, the approach of the former chief of the defence force Angus Campbell in relation to the Sheean VC case is compelling. It's been publicly reported that Campbell wrote to the Prime Minister advising against a VC for Sheean, despite the tribunal recommending the recognition. For the record, the former chief of the defence force also advised me that he didn't support Sheean receiving a VC. I had an outstanding working relationship with the former CDF and I respect him greatly, but we had to agree to disagree on this point. In relation to the tribunal, he briefed against Sheean receiving a VC, and I campaigned for it and I supported the tribunal's findings.

Defence just hates the fact that a tribunal exists to review its decisions. It hates the fact that actions from previous conflicts can be reassessed, and it hates the fact that any person may apply for a review. But now it's found a minister willing to just roll over and do its bidding at the expense of transparency and accountability. This deeply flawed legislation raises more questions than it answers—without proper consultation, there are just so many unanswered questions in relation to this bill. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal told a Senate inquiry that introducing a 20-year time limit for a tribunal review would:

… abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award.

Specifically, I'd like to ask the Prime Minister: why is the government ignoring the advice of an independent statutory agency and taking the rights of appeal away from veterans and their families?

I'd also like to ask: can the Prime Minister confirm that Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean would never have received a Victoria Cross under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that Private Richard Norden would never have received a Victoria Cross under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago? Maybe the Prime Minister could also confirm that soldiers who fought in the Battle of Long Tan would never have received additional medallic recognition for their bravery under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago?

Maybe the minister or the Prime Minister could walk in here and answer this question: on whose advice did the government decide to ban the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago, and why wasn't the position tested with a full consultation process involving the affected parties? In the interests of transparency, prior to the election, why didn't the Prime Minister tell veterans and their families from World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and numerous other conflicts that he intended to remove their right to appeal Defence decisions regarding honours and awards?

On 18 June 2020 the Prime Minister told the House that the point of having an independent defence honours and appeals tribunal was to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. Prime Minister, can you explain why this government is seeking to reduce the scope of this tribunal, this independent statutory body, and block veterans and their families from seeking review of Defence honours?

Finally, I have a question for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In relation to the plan to abolish the rights of veterans and families to seek an independent review of Defence decisions, can the minister confirm that he misled the chamber when he said, 'If the family themselves wish to have the matter reviewed, that should and will remain open to them'? That statement's not true. If the minister has misled the chamber, he needs to come in here and correct the record. It's not true, Deputy Speaker Young. The families can't seek a review under this legislation.

Minister, if you've misled the chamber, come back and correct the record. It could be an honest mistake. It could have been a drafting error in the speech. He could have misspoken. I don't know. From my reading of the legislation, it is abundantly clear that families have no right whatsoever to seek a review of an honour decision that is being denied by Defence.

I must confess, in many ways, I was pretty surprised—if not actually stunned—when the minister rose to make his second reading speech on this issue last week. We had no warning. We had no idea that he was heading down this pathway. There'd been no consultation with key agencies. So I say, again, in summing-up, this legislation is an example of a government that has run out of puff in just four months and is a solution looking for a problem.

There has been no consultation with veterans groups, and the bill proposes to amend the Defence Act to such a degree that the tribunal's operations would be, effectively, muzzled. The most egregious amendment is to strip the tribunal of the capacity to review decisions dating back to World War II, which obviously includes the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Korean War and the Malayan emergency—and every other operation in that time period.

Labor wants to limit the reviewable decision period to just 20 years and has provided no explanation whatsoever as to why that is a fair outcome. It also wants to strip ADF members, veterans and their families and everyday Australians of their right to seek a review of a Defence decision. Under these changes, make no mistake, veterans' advocates, historians and people with a specific interest in medallic recognition would have no right to seek a review of Defence decisions. I fear the minister has been somewhat hoodwinked by the defence department. The minister has swallowed the story that Defence is infallible and there's no need for the tribunal to have the capacity to review decisions dating back further than 20 years, because it's all a bit too hard. Well, I say it's too important. It's too important to have the capacity to consider past actions beyond 20 years. But we're simply rolling over for Defence because they don't like the tribunal and have never liked the tribunal, because it's sometimes hard to do the research and get the paperwork together.

I'm going to give one final practical example, which was the review undertaken by the tribunal into Warrant Officer Kevin Wheatley's actions in the Vietnam War in 1965, 60 years ago. It wouldn't be allowable to have that review under this legislation, but let's look at this case. In the Wheatley case, it was claimed there had been a lack of recognition for two separate actions by Wheatley in May and August of 1965. Keep in mind that Wheatley had been awarded a VC for actions later in the same year—actions which occurred in November. Defence tried to claim the VC was for cumulative actions in what was described as a uniquely imaginative approach to the issue. But, after exhaustive analysis, the tribunal found that Wheatley should also be posthumously awarded a medal for gallantry for his two other actions in the same year. This was a simple case of maladministration. There was no new evidence required. No additional witnesses were required. Under this legislation, this case would never have been reviewed by the tribunal. The tribunal found that the VC for Wheatley was a completely separate action and the other events in May and August 1965 warranted further recognition. Justice was done decades after the action occurred.

I'm not surprised that the speaking list for this bill is a little bit light on from the other side. I'd be embarrassed to come in here as well if I were a member of the Labor Party trying to justify this ridiculous legislation. On this side of the House, we understand the importance of the Australian Defence Force. We understand the need to ensure we can recruit some of the best and brightest young Australians to serve in our Navy, in our Army and in our Air Force. We want them to train well, to serve well, to transition well and also, where appropriate, to be suitably acknowledged for their service to our nation. The coalition supports the rights of men and women who serve in uniform and the generations of personnel who have gone before them. Medallic recognition of service, in particular for acts of gallantry and bravery, is an integral part of the Australian Defence Force.

Military officers are not infallible. Errors of judgement can be made in relation to recommendations for medallic recognition. The very establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in 2011 provided a statutory agency for an independent review of past actions and decisions. It has to remain independent. The Labor Party is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system and limit the rights of our veterans, our Australian Defence Force personnel, their families and other interested parties to question, through their own temerity, the merit of a past decision. This legislation should never have made it into the chamber. I'm assuming the Leader of Government Business ran out of legislation last week, contacted his colleagues and said, 'Has anyone got anything we could put in the House?' This should never have made it into the chamber. It's an example of a government which has run out of puff in just four months, and it is a solution looking for a problem. No wonder there were only eight weeks scheduled between the election and the end of the year. We have a part-time parliament, which is debating a bill like this, which no-one in the veterans community has even asked for.

On that final point about consultation and the lack of consultation, not even the RSL was asked for a review before the minister made his second reading speech last week. The largest ex-service organisation in the nation was completely blindsided when this bill was introduced last week. The hypocrisy of both the current prime minister and the defence minister—the Deputy Prime Minister, who strongly expressed views during the debate over Teddy Sheean that a posthumous VC should be awarded—has to be called out, because under these changes there would be no pathway to review past actions beyond 20 years, even if compelling new evidence was produced. Sadly, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has not presented any evidence that the tribunal has been overcome or deluged with referrals following the awarding of medals after the inquiry. It simply hasn't happened. That is despite the critics within the defence establishment often claiming it would open the floodgates whenever a successful review of a gallantry medal is awarded. They constantly claim there's going to be a flood of applicants for medals. It hasn't happened.

Defence has always been hostile to this tribunal and the retrospective nature of examining past actions and openly opposed Sheean receiving a VC, a VC which was cheered across the nation, cheered on that side of the House and cheered on this side of the House. It would have been impossible under the legislation before the House today because it would not have been a reviewable decision. While Defence claim its opposition stems from the view that military acts are best assessed at the time by the relevant officers, in this whole debate there's also likely to be an element of some senior officers simply resenting the prospect of having their judgement reviewed by a tribunal at a later date. They don't want an independent tribunal checking their homework.

At their heart, these changes are an effort by the government to remove independence from a statutory body which was, as I said, established in 2011 to consider all defence honours and awards matters. The government claims it is seeking to remedy issues but then gives no detailed explanation in relation to the extent of the alleged issues and which organisation has actually raised any concerns with the government. The minister has not made a coherent case for change, and he possibly misled parliament when he claimed that families could still seek a review. I'd like him to come to the chamber, if that's the case, and correct the record.

The coalition supports openness and transparency and believes these proposed changes should be tested in a Senate inquiry, not just inside the vested interests of the defence department. Veterans and historians should have the opportunity to make submissions and flesh out all of the relevant issues regarding the reviewable time limit of 20 years, a limitation which would prevent significant actions in the future being assessed by the tribunal. If the minister won't withdraw this legislation, he should at least have the decency to consult with impacted stakeholders and understand the consequences of this flawed approach. I commend the amendments, and I thank the House.

See this speech in context