Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the member for Herbert's service to this country, as well as the service of the member for Canning and the member for Solomon. I'm probably forgetting others, but, if you served in uniform for this country, then on Australia's national flag day I salute you. The country thanks you for your service. It was more than 103,000 Australians. Picture the size of the crowd in the MCG on an AFL grand final day. That and a little bit more is the number of Australians who pulled on the uniform and were killed in the ultimate sacrifice for the generations that followed. That is a sacrifice that Australians can never repay, and it's a sacrifice that I often talk about to school children. I note the school kids that have just sat down in the gallery upstairs.

We talk about how this parliament was designed in such a way that, if you opened up all the doors between the cabinet room and each door that proceeds to the front of Parliament House, you can look down the colonnade to see the Australian War Memorial. It's the decisions that are made in this House that send our men and women into conflict. As we just heard from the member for Herbert, who served his country in Afghanistan and was wounded very severely, the pains and the scars of that conflict remain with him and many of his colleagues. We in this place and we Australians who have never served should always remember and thank them for their service.

So, when it comes to bills like these, I shake my head in disbelief that this government would bring such a bill as this that will strip the rights of our service men and women to be able to effectively review decisions of Defence around honours and awards. It doesn't strip them entirely. I accept that. But what it does is neuter the ability of the tribunal in the timeframes that applications for reviews have to be made and of those who can bring them. It is absolutely a solution in search of a problem.

I had a retired lieutenant colonel contact me on Sunday about this bill. Graeme Mickelberg, who is a constituent of mine, often rings me about veterans' affairs matters. He had a very long and distinguished service career in the Australian Army, and he was very exercised by this bill. He, along with a number of other veterans that I have spoken to, cannot understand the rationale of this government in bringing forward this bill. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal was established in 2011, and it was supposed to be and has been an independent body. But some genius or geniuses in the Department of Defence have decided that they no longer like—they have probably never liked—their decisions being reviewed by the tribunal, so, effectively, want to gut the jurisdiction, the ability and the powers of this tribunal to be able to make decisions.

I get that many Australians might be thinking: 'This doesn't impact on me. Why should I bother about this?' Just remember those 103,000 Australians. One of those 103,000 Australians might have been your granddad, your uncle, your mum or your sister who have served in uniform. They may have either paid the ultimate sacrifice or been in the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have served in the ADF that have been willing to make that ultimate sacrifice for us—for you.

As the member for Herbert pointed out, it is unbelievably telling that there is a dearth of members of the government who are willing to speak to this bill. Quite frankly, I am surprised at this government's willingness to continue to proceed with this bill, given that they know—they must have known—the guttural response that this bill would receive from our veteran community. They must have known that veterans often get adverse decisions about these honours and awards from Defence, and they must have known that the ability to seek an independent review—a review independent of government—from an independent tribunal would be held sacrosanct by these veterans and their families. That the government would be introducing this bill today leaves me flabbergasted.

Military officers are not infallible. None of us are infallible. Errors of judgement are made, particularly on the battlefield, and errors of judgement are absolutely made by departmental officers. The Labor Party is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system and limit the rights of veterans and other interested parties to question the merit of past decisions. It absolutely shows a complete lack of respect for our veterans and their rights to recognition.

The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, as I said, is independent. It was established in 2011 under the Defence Act. It's designed to consider Defence honours and award matters. The tribunal has both a review and an inquiry function. In its review function, the tribunal can conduct a merits review of a decision of Defence that is a refusal to recommend a person for a Defence honour, such as a gallantry or distinguished service decoration; a defence award, such as a medal granted for service in a campaign or to recognise long service; or a foreign award. Through this review function, the tribunal allows Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families to obtain timely, independent and thorough reviews of those decisions.

In its inquiry function, at the direction of the minister, the tribunal can inquire into matters relating to Defence honours and awards and provide a report and recommendations to government. The legislation currently under debate shuts the door on any further review of actions in the Vietnam War. By 2029, it will shut the door on ADF members that served in Iraq.

As an idea of the impact that this bill would have on review possibilities, as the member for Herbert pointed out, D Company actions during the Vietnam War at Long Tan would not have been reviewable. On 18 August 1966, members of D company were outnumbered 20 to one and fought against the odds to defeat the Viet Cong. About 245 Viet Cong were killed in the rubber plantation; 18 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 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 Harry Smith, that these 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery. Under this legislation, they would never have received the medals that they were rightly due. Under this legislation, Teddy Sheean, that young sailor, would never have received his Victoria Cross.

I seem to recall the Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, standing up here and thumping the dispatch box, particularly, around Teddy Sheean and how he had been consistently knocked back for a Victoria Cross. Yet the legislation that his government wants to introduce would disempower the very awarding of a Victoria Cross to people like Teddy Sheean.

Defence and senior members of the ADF have consistently pushed back against retrospective awarding of these sorts of gallantry awards, like the Victoria Cross. I remember being part of a voice or voices which, when we were in government, led to the appointment of Brendan Nelson, the former director of the War Memorial, in conducting an inquiry, in relation to another inquiry, in relation to Teddy Sheean. In short, this is just another step by the Albanese government to stifle dissenting opinions, to stop review and to stop transparency of their decisions.

We saw this yesterday, in relation to the introduction of the new FOI laws. Families of veterans will not have a right to seek a review for an honour under this legislation. Let me say that again: families of veterans will not have a right to seek a review for an honour under this legislation. Veterans, family members, advocates and historians should have the ability to seek review under the tribunal—as, we all know, in this place, sometimes a veteran or their family are not able to take carriage of their matter through such a process.

That's why we have an advocacy system through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. But that shouldn't stop them from seeking the medallic recognition they could be entitled to. This legislation was written by the department whose decisions the tribunal was set up to review. The opposition was briefed by Defence, with no tribunal staff or members present to defend their position in opposing these changes. Would anyone in this parliament think it appropriate for Defence to decide how the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force operates?

I urge the government to reconsider their position on the bill. At the very least, this bill must be reviewed and those impacted must be consulted.

See this speech in context