Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

This is a speech to parliament from 18 June 2020 by Anthony Albanese, who is now the Prime Minister:

The point of having an independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. The tribunal unanimously supported Tasmanian hero Teddy Sheean getting a VC. But the Prime Minister tells us that we need a review of a review … On the merits, Teddy Sheean is worthy of a Victoria Cross.

The Prime Minister supports, when in opposition, the appeals tribunal and supports Teddy Sheean getting a VC. But, under the proposal of the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, it wouldn't have occurred. I also think it's quite noticeable that none of the veterans from the Labor Party who sit in parliament are in the chamber or speaking on this today. They know that this is wrong. There's been no consultation and no reach-out to veterans. The ESORT said that they don't recall or have any recollection of a conversation with the minister. No-one with medals of gallantry that I've spoken to has heard from the minister. This is not supported, this is a bad bill, and the coalition will oppose it.

I listened with great interest to the contributions of both the member for Sturt and the shadow minister for veterans' affairs. One of the things that I want to highlight is that senior officers in the ADF don't always get it right. Well, quite often they get it wrong. Former chief of defence force Angus Campbell rejected and campaigned against Teddy Sheean's getting the Victoria Cross. He was wrong. He was out of step. He was incorrect. The awards appeals tribunal also agreed that he was wrong. I've served in East Timor and in Afghanistan. I've never seen a senior officer on the two-way range. I've never seen them running and gunning before, yet, if this bill were to go through, we would look to them as the people of truth and the only arbiters of what happens with awards. Senior officers do not like to be told they're wrong. They get all upset. But, more often than not, they have been wrong in the past when it comes to recommendations for honours that have been reviewed and deemed fit for award by the appeals tribunal.

As to the 20-year mark at which an honour could no longer be recommended, we've heard a bit about the world wars and the Vietnam War, but, in four years time, the Iraq War, a modern-day conflict, will also be outside of the timeframe for a review into someone's service; a recommendation for an honour will be outside that timeframe. Now, there'll be some time, if this bill were to get up, for the Afghanistan War to reach that 20-year timeframe. On 19 October 2009, I was blown up by an improvised explosive device. A bomb threw me back. I was lying on my back, dust and flames in the air. Most people know that, if there's one IED, there'll probably be a second one. Without thinking of his own safety, without thinking of what could happen to him, Tom Howell, the medic on my patrol, ran through and jumped through the blast site, through the dust plume and flames, to come and treat me, to look after me. There were no senior officers on patrol; there was a bunch of enlisted soldiers out there fighting side by side with the Afghan national army. He had no regard for his safety and no regard for injuries that could have been inflicted upon him. I think Tom Howell should have been recommended for and awarded an honour—I really do. I'd hate it if, when these things get reviewed, when it's past the 20-year timeframe, he couldn't be considered like Teddy Sheean and others that have done fantastic, heroic, brave things in service of this nation. I do think that military officers are not the beacon of truth for everything.

And this Labor government is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system. A solution looking for a problem—that's what this bill is. You've not been asked to do it. It's not been requested by veterans or their families. You haven't been lobbied, apart from the Department of Defence, who just think this is too much work. You've not consulted the veteran community, yet you want to find a problem through creating some sort of solution. There is no evidence—no evidence at all—that the veteran community will accept or would like these proposed changes. And who knows better than the people that we're talking about—the veterans?

Defence has always been hostile to the tribunal and the retrospective nature of examining past actions, and it openly opposed Teddy Sheean receiving the Victoria Cross. So, on this bill, why on earth would we be taking their advice and not listening to veterans and their families? Defence claims its opposition stems from the view that military acts are best assessed at the time by relevant officers, and—this is ridiculous, this bill—there's also likely to be an element of senior officers resenting the prospect of having their judgement reviewed by the tribunal at a later date. Everything's always about the officer class when it comes to Defence, and that has been evident from the former CDF's tenure all the way through to now.

These changes are an effort by the government to remove independence from a statutory body which was established in 2011 to consider all defence honours and awards matters, and it was set up by a Labor government. The coalition supports openness and transparency and believes these proposed changes should be tested with a wider audience, not just inside the Department of Defence. This has not gone out to the veteran community. No-one I have spoken to has heard about, been told about or been briefed on this bill by any member of the government, let alone the minister in charge.

If you look at the actions of D Company in the Vietnam War, they would not have been reviewable under this bill's proposed changes. On 18 August 1966, members of Delta Company were outnumbered 20 to one and fought against the odds to defeat the Vietcong. Two hundred and forty-five Vietcong were killed in the rubber plantation, and 18 Australians were killed, with more wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for recognition. Company commander Harry Smith long fought for recognition for Long Tan's frontline soldiers. He said a 30-year secrecy period and bureaucratic red tape stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases on behalf of Mr Smith that 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery. Under this legislation, they never would have received the medals they were rightly due.

I can't understand why this government is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It screams of there having been no thought for those that have served on operations and what this would mean to them. I spoke to a friend of mine who's got a Medal for Gallantry—there aren't that many people that have a Medal for Gallantry; I'm sure the minister or any member of the government could have picked up the phone and called him—and I told him about this. He laughed down the phone and said 'nice joke'. I said: 'I'm not joking. It's a serious bill before the parliament.' He couldn't understand why this would be occurring—why the Department of Defence would be out to lead the charge in making such changes without going to the community that it represents, without going out to the people that have been awarded these medals, without going to the families and without speaking to those that live this every day. The RSL doesn't know about it. No ex-service organisations know about it. ESORT has no idea about it.

I don't think this is a good bill, and that is evidenced by Labor having only one speaker on this and having none of their veterans in the parliament for this debate. I do think of the hypocrisy from this Prime Minister. When in opposition, he stood at this despatch box saying why there is a need for this—why we need to have the tribunal and why Teddy Sheean should be awarded the VC. Now he turns around and implements a bill that would have seen him not be awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery. It just shows that, when in opposition, the Prime Minister will say anything. When in government he'll change his mind. He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth, and we've seen that through his time as Prime Minister as well.

I honestly believe this has been a complete misstep and a rushed bill. Having no consultation demonstrates that. The minister should be in here listening and answering questions that I'm sure he'll read with great joy, with the shadow minister for veterans' affairs asking away about us not having had any briefing on this. I haven't had any briefing on this. I do think that this should be widely consulted, not rushed through. I just would like to finish up by saying that, as a veteran—as someone who has been on operations, been wounded in combat, seen bravery, seen people who have done the most remarkable things that a human can do—those who have come before us through the world wars and Vietnam and Somalia would still be lobbying today for honours and awards. They would be reading this bill going, 'Well, this is all just going to be put in the bin.'

Lobby groups who have been out lobbying to get Delta Company the recognition they deserve wouldn't have happened with this bill. You're putting a lid on the bravery that is still before the tribunal or still to be raised, and I think it's not appropriate. In four years time Iraq will have a lid on it as well, and no-one will be able to put forward any brave actions that have occurred. I think about what will happen when people start wanting to talk about the bravery they saw in Afghanistan, because it takes time. People think that once you've seen heroic things, been wounded, been in a gunfight or anything like that, you close your eyes, click your heels together, and everyone just rocks up with medals. We go through a process. It took me several years to even talk about defence again. It took me several years to pull myself out of a dark hole, and we're saying now that we've got a timeframe to rush people to quickly get everyone around a table and go, 'These are the brave actions that happened; please award these people.' It takes time. I don't want to see people left behind by a bad bill that hasn't been widely consulted on. I will be opposing this.

See this speech in context