Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

This Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 raises a number of questions around the priorities of this government. When I think about the priorities of a government that's just been returned to office, at a time when Australians are feeling the most incredible degree of financial stress—when households are struggling to pay their mortgages and electricity bills or even goods at the supermarket, a simple basket of food—I would hope that the priority of the Australian government was on how to ease the cost of burden, the pressure, and alleviate whatever pressure there may be on households at this difficult time.

I would hope that in an environment of global instability we had a government that was focused on reassuring and strengthening our nation so that it can lean into the challenges of the 21st century. When I think about what artificial intelligence could do to our employment market and to jobs creation and growth, I would hope that the focus of the government was on skills and economic developments, to reassure Australians that we have a way forward to meet the future with confidence. I would hope that, at a time like this, we had leadership that was focused on building the strength of our nation—more importantly, that, when we have a government that has been given a gift of a majority, 94 seats, by the Australian people, it would be focused on steering the good ship Australia towards a brighter future.

But, at the moment, we have a very different type of government embodied by this legislation. Gifted by the Australian people with this enormous privilege, its priorities at the moment are how it can strip accountability and scrutiny from its decision-making. It's not just about how they're stripping accountability from their decision-making but how they are also shutting a curtain of censorship over the departments and the decision-making of government, to impose a culture of secrecy on Canberra.

I can say one thing for certain. Nobody walked into the ballot box at the general election this year and voted for that. Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I'm going to go and vote for a re-elected Albanese government because they are going to be the most secretive government in Australian political history.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to impose a veil of secrecy.' Nobody, no Australian, walked into the ballot box and said, 'I'm going to vote for the Albanese government because they're going to increase the cost of and diminish access to information.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'We are going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to redact more information available to the Australian people.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to limit my capacity to scrutinise government decision-making.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they're going to reduce the number of staff for members of the opposition so they are less able to hold the government to account in this parliament.' And I am sure, as day follows night, that nobody walked into the ballot box and voted for the Albanese government, saying, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government so they can strip away a pathway for review of decision-making around honouring our deceased war veterans.'

For the government to make this one of their first, premier pieces of legislation says something brutal and, frankly, quite terrifying about their priorities as a government. While we have former state Labor premiers marching down the red carpets in Beijing right now and celebrating past military conflicts, we seem completely unwilling to fully honour and have pathways for review to honour the legacy of our own. There is something deeply worrying about the priorities of the Albanese government. The coalition proudly supports all men and women who have served in uniform and, in some cases, have had to, tragically, make the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our nation. We ultimately believe that anybody who has been prepared to make a sacrifice, to stand up and fight for our country, should have their courage and their bravery acknowledged and respected not just through the history and the stories of our nation but through medals, as is appropriate for their valiant service.

The tribunal exists to make sure that there is proper and fair review of the decisions of the defence department to make sure there is proper recognition, because in the tragedy of the fog of war, of course, decisions are sometimes made based on information that is incorrect. We simply believe that information should be able to come to light so decision-making is fair and fully respects what actually happened on the ground. We know, sometimes, through court cases and other information provided, that what first appears to have happened can, in fact, be wrong. That's why we have reviews. That's why we have a pathway to make sure that new information can be provided.

This government wants to shut that process down, and I simply cannot fathom how this is its priority right now in comparison to the enormity of other problems—not just the problems that the Australian people face but, frankly, the bigger problems that the Australian Defence Force is facing around its capacity and its position to meet the challenges of the 21st century, which is our most strategic operating environment since the Second World War according to the Australian government's own white paper.

The establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in 2011 provided a statutory agency for independent review of past actions and decisions. We know that military officers are not infallible and that errors of judgement can be made in relation to recommendations for medallic recognition. By simply interfering in this process, we are removing a pathway for revision of the merits of past decisions. It's a simple expectation that there be transparency and that those decisions be reviewed if new information comes to light. We know that in the past they have been, and correctly so.

The government is seeking a remedy but has given no justification or evidence of why this is the case beyond the department not wanting to go through the laborious task of wanting to honour our former defence personnel and give them full recognition. Frankly, I understand that it's bureaucratically problematic for the department, but, when we're talking about the legacy of honouring those who are prepared to sacrifice for our nation, I think you can put up with it at your desks. There is a simple expectation from all Australians, I would hope, to properly honour our ex-service men and women, and that is what we, on the opposition benches, expect. But, clearly, the department have found a compliant government that is prepared to trade off that full recognition, because it is going to introduce a 20-year limit for the tribunal to review past decisions. It should, justifiably, be opposed.

In discussing the impact of several of Defence's proposals, the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal said the original proposal would have 'rendered invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by the tribunal between 2020 and 2023.'

The tribunal also said:

… the Defence proposals, if implemented, 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.

I simply cannot understand how this can be a priority of this government at this time. They have made their decision, and they are introducing this bill to this parliament. It is, of course, going through the House of Representatives right now, but it will go through a proper review in the Senate.

The question, in the end, is how can members of this government come into this parliament and stand by this legislation. I see the minister at the desk. We, of course, don't see many members of the government standing up and supporting this legislation by speaking in favour of it. To be fair, I can understand why. I wouldn't want to be attached to it either, if I were on the other side of this chamber. I think they would be mocked and ridiculed by the RSLs and many of the Defence personnel in their electorates for standing up and saying: 'This is my priority in the federal parliament right now. While I was sent to Canberra because people in the community had genuine concerns about their future, wanting security and confidence about their capacity to live their best lives, my priority is to seek to diminish the rightful recognition of Defence personnel.' I suspect most people, in their electorates, would turn around and say, 'You have very strange priorities indeed.'

I've no doubt this will pass through the House of Representatives with the support of those on the other side of this chamber, with their gargantuan majority and distorted priorities. My path forward is to write to the presidents of all the local RSLs in the Goldstein electorate—Thomas Concaig from Hampton RSL, James Steedman from Caulfield RSL, Jordie Burgess from Highett RSL, Simon Richards from Cheltenham Moorabbin RSL and Bentleigh RSL—and to Mark Schroffel, who is now the state president of RSL Victoria. I'll, of course, seek their input and opinion and encourage them to write submissions to the review, or to any inquiry that comes out of the Senate process, to make sure that their views are heard. Of course, I encourage any member of our veterans community, and of the entire Australian community, to write to the Senate inquiry to have their views heard and ask if it is appropriate that the government is engaging in a pathway to limit the review of decision-making and the full recognition of the past service of former defence personnel. I doubt there are going to be many Australians who turn around and say the best thing for those wearing our uniform is to diminish or delete the pathways for recognition of their service. Maybe there are, but I doubt it. That just seems to be the priority of the Albanese government. I suspect most Australians would believe that it was better there was full recognition and, if necessary, a pathway of review and, in addition to that, would say to the government, 'Don't you have slightly better priorities than this?' The answer is clearly no.

In addition to that, I would encourage every member of the Australian community to not just look at this legislation and reflect on it in isolation in what it says about the Albanese government in the context of the ADF, but to look at it in terms of the priorities of the Albanese government in the context of their broader legislative government agenda. Look at the fact that they're shutting down the pathways for Australians to review the decisions of full recognition of our ADF personnel, then look at what they're doing around shutting down transparency of decision-making in Australian government decisions, around redacting documents and trying to keep secret information about government decision-making, around imposing a new truth tax to limit access to information to the Australian people and around denying staff to members of parliament to diminish the capacity for scrutiny of government.

The extent to which you have ministers and the Prime Minister come into this chamber who increasingly won't answer questions or say, 'I refer to my previous answer,' which included not answering questions—we increasingly see decision-making by members of this government which is only to the benefit of 'cartel-ish' behaviour towards the benefit of those who donate to the Labor Party or to boost the benefits and the graft of the Labor Party. You realise that the priority of this government is not the Australian people. It is not to respect the Australian people and it is not to recognise how we use this parliament to advance the Australian people, but it is simply to achieve its own ends. I say that with absolute sadness because, if anything, we come into this parliament, hopefully, with an esprit de corps that the objective of being elected to the federal parliament is to advance Australia and to ultimately 'Advance Australia Fair' for all.

When you see a piece of legislation like this and like the one that is being flagged by the Attorney-General to shut down scrutiny of government and the behaviour of the government in the context of question time and the decisions of the Prime Minister—we're now seeing a pattern of behaviour which says that the 94 seats that this government has got in the House of Representatives suggests that a hubris and an arrogance is now distorting not just their behaviour but their priorities. It's unfortunately focused on themselves rather than the Australian people, and we need to call it out because the consequences and the on flow to the Australian people will be significant. Now is the time for good people to stand up and call it out.

See this speech in context