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

I'd just like to check to make sure no-one else wants the call. I do respect the right of other members to speak, and I thought members of the Labor Party, having realised the gravity of the bill before the chamber tonight, for consideration in detail, would be putting down their glasses and rushing down to the chamber to make a contribution, but that's clearly not the case.

The minister has tried to claim that the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal itself wanted the changes which are included in the bill. In his second reading speech, the minister said:

After well more than a decade of operation, 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 others over time in relation to its operation.

That sounds reasonable. But what would you expect next? After saying that the tribunal has raised issues and that others, over time, have raised issues, you'd think the minister would produce some evidence to make his case. You'd think that that's what he'd do. But the speech goes on with no further reference to any great contribution from the tribunal about asking to have itself cut off at the knees. There's no mention of that. So I wanted to check what the tribunal has been saying. It was very interesting to read the evidence given by the tribunal to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system. In that inquiry, the tribunal actually exposed the minister's deception from his second reading speech, because the tribunal expressed its opposition to a 20-year timeframe being imposed on it. It specifically expressed its opposition to the 20-year timeframe. Yet, in the minister's second reading speech, apparently the tribunal wants the changes.

An honourable member: It doesn't add up.

I don't know. What's true? Perhaps, if the minister had expanded on his claim about the tribunal wanting the changes, we could test his reference point. But no. We had the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system, and the tribunal specifically told the 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'. It can't be any clearer: the tribunal that the Labor Party is trying to cut off at the knees here tonight has said expressly that it does not support the imposition of a 20-year time limit on the assessment of reviews for Defence honours and awards, and the reason why it doesn't want that 20-year time limit, from my experience in dealing with the tribunal, is that its members have always acted diligently, professionally and with integrity, and they have done a difficult job very, very well. They have an objective. They have searched through additional information and research and reports, and they have come up with decisions which have stood the test of public scrutiny. I know they've stood the test of public scrutiny because this minister, his prime minister and his defence minister are all happily out there cheering it on when Teddy Sheean gets a VC or Richard Norden gets a VC, because the tribunal had the capacity to review decisions made by Defence dating back decades.

I'll say it again: 'We will remember them' does not have a use-by date. It's not, 'We will remember them sometimes,' 'We will remember them when it's convenient,' or, 'We will remember them as long as it happened in the last 20 years.' 'We will remember them' is our solemn oath and our duty to recognise and respect servicemen and servicewomen throughout our nation's history, and this tribunal has the capacity to review Defence decisions dating back decades for a very good reason. So I ask the minister: why is the government ignoring the advice of an independent statutory agency and taking rights of appeal away from Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families? (Time expired)

See this speech in context