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

I did pause just for a moment to check whether any members opposite were keen to join in the consideration in detail, but I couldn't see anyone on their feet. I will yield if anyone from the other side wants to speak. I'm quite happy to yield. It is clearly not going to be a situation we have to worry about here this evening, because, again, they're missing in action.

The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 came before the House last Thursday and was debated today, with one speaker from those opposite. But, on this side of the House, including on the crossbench, every speaker has been asking the same question of the minister and the Prime Minister: what is the actual problem the Albanese government is trying to fix with this flawed legislation? What is the actual problem? You couldn't explain it to the crossbench. I had a briefing on Monday, and no-one could explain to me then what was so badly broken that meant you had to abolish the capacity of a statutory agency—a tribunal, in fact—to review decisions dating back decades. If you couldn't explain to me in that briefing what you were trying to fix, why would you expect the people on this side of the chamber to vote for it?

As it turned out, everyone in the chamber voted against it, apart from the Labor Party. The crossbench, the Liberals and the Nationals all voted against it. That's because our system of honours and awards simply isn't broken. The government has not made the case. It isn't broken. This has been a bipartisan position for the entire time that the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal has been in existence—and all credit to the former Gillard government for bringing the tribunal into play in 2011. It brought an end to years and decades of demands for medallic recognition without a proper process for people to pursue that recognition. What it means to have the tribunal is that an action can be brought to the attention of the Department of Defence and it can be considered. And if in fact Defence says no to, say, a Teddy Sheean or a Richard Norden or the likes of Delta Company at Long Tan, if the department says no, then it is allowed to be reviewed by the tribunal, an independent statutory body established by the Labor party for just this purpose. And it has worked. It is not broken.

Teddy Sheean would not get a VC under this legislation, because his decision would never have been reviewed, because it was outside the 20-year time limit. Richard Norden would never have gotten a VC under this legislation—again, it's outside the 20-year time limit. And Commander Harry Smith's brave troops at Long Tan would never have been recognised, because that action occurred in the Vietnam War, outside the 20-year limitation.

I would like as much as possible to be bipartisan on veterans issues, but the Labor Party has not established a good reason for this reform. The tribunal members, in my direct experience as veterans minister, have acted with diligence, with integrity and with professionalism. They have made weighty decisions about medals. They haven't been out there handing out medals in Weeties packets. They have been exploring these very difficult cases, objectively assessing the cases and then deciding what recommendation they would put forward to government. They weren't handing out Victoria Crosses lightly; I can promise you that.

The capacity to review decisions made by Defence is a design feature of the tribunal, which was established in 2011. This bill strips rights away from ADF personnel, veterans and families. The minister continues—he did it again today—to pretend that families will have the right to review of an honour under this legislation, which is simply not true. Look at your second reading speech, Minister.

If you want to talk, get to the dispatch box. You are not telling the truth when it comes to families. Prior to the election, why didn't the Prime Minister tell veterans and the families of veterans 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 these major honours and awards? If you were so proud of the legislation, Minister, why wouldn't you have taken it to the election and tested it with the Australian people in the first place?

There is no use-by date on, 'We will remember them.' There is not, 'We will remember them sometimes.' This 20-year timeframe is a complete and utter farce. No wonder that Labor Party members opposite are not in here to speak to try to defend it. (Time expired)

See this speech in context