Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's about the minister backflipping on two things which were very good in the Gillard government. He wants to shut me down; I'm talking about positives about the Gillard government. One was the National Soils Advocate, and the other was the ability to review decisions taken not to give veterans medals. They were two good decisions made by the Gillard government. If a Labor minister wants to say that a Nationals member who's praising a former Labor prime minister is not within the standing orders, well, good luck with that. You might have to answer to your future Labor caucus.

What really galls me is the fact that we've got a situation where the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, an independent statutory body, was established in 2011 under the Gillard government. And it was a good thing, as the shadow minister for veterans affairs has just outlined. It was put in place under the Defence Act to consider defence honours and awards matters, and it has both a review and an inquiry function. What the minister proposes to do with this legislation is allow it to overturn decisions made, but only to allow reviews in a 20-year timeframe. That will ensure that veterans who fought in Vietnam, Korea and certainly World War II will not have their actions able to be considered.

As of mid-2025, DHAAT reported, it had conducted 483 reviews, of which it had affirmed the original Defence decision 283 times and had triggered a change in decision on 136 occasions, with the remaining withdrawn for consideration. This represents about a quarter of decisions taken to the tribunal having been wrongly decided by Defence, because the decisions were overturned, only further proving the importance of the tribunal. In those cases which were overturned, those awardees deserved their recognition, but, under the situation that the minister is proposing, they will not be considered unless it's within that 20-year timeframe, and that is such a shame. As the shadow minister quite correctly pointed out, some veterans don't like to talk of their war service. But I'll tell you what they do want to do, and that is make sure that their comrades who have gone above and beyond with their gallant actions are recognised. If they deserve to have the awards that they were given uplifted, or, indeed, to be given an award that they weren't presented at the time, if it's not done within that 20-year timeframe, they won't get it.

The minister who is proposing this needs to really think about the loyalty, the service, the sacrifice, that these people have made for and on behalf of our nation, for and on behalf of our flag, for and on behalf of what we are here for, and that is to ensure that we give a free and fair and democratic society a fair go. This isn't giving veterans a fair go. This isn't giving the RSLs a fair go. Australia should be all about a fair go. I again ask the minister: why have you reached this decision? We're not seeing any Labor member, apart from the first-term member for Sturt, backing you up, Minister. I ask again: why has this decision been taken? Why are you backing up the bureaucrats instead of backing up the veterans, backing up the RSLs, backing up the communities who quite rightly think that this would be an absolute poor decision made in haste? (Time expired)

See this speech in context