Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. It goes to something very fundamental to our nation, to our Defence Force defending our country, which is how we recognise the men and women who wear our uniform and how we correct the mistakes when recognition has been denied.

The coalition's starting point on this important issue is very simple. People are the foundation of national security. If we can't properly attract, retain, motivate and honour the men and women who serve our great country, we cannot defend our great country. Medallic recognition is not symbolism. It is a demonstration of how a grateful nation says clearly and publicly: 'We saw what you did. It mattered, and we will never forget.'

We are seeing the most dangerous strategic environment that our part of the world, and perhaps the world more generally, has seen since the Second World War. It is a volatile world where authoritarian regimes around the globe are flexing their muscles. Indeed, we see that displayed on our TV sets right now, as we speak. We see on our TVs cruise missiles that can reach Australia. We're seeing a celebration of the greatest military build-up in history by the Chinese Communist Party. It is unprecedented. And, can I say, it is beyond comprehension that two senior Labor figures Bob Carr and Daniel Andrews should participate in the celebration of that military build-up. That's exactly what they are doing as we speak here today.

It is also beyond belief that the Prime Minister fails to discourage that kind of behaviour. These authoritarian regimes, whether they are in Russia, North Korea or Iran or whether it is the Chinese Communist Party, do not share our values. Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are not our friends. In the case of Putin, he is the autocratic leader who is currently fighting an illegal war against the free people of the Ukraine. We ask that the Prime Minister state clearly that it is unacceptable for our senior Labor figures to be part of that celebration.

Returning to the matter at hand, we do meet in the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. That's why the great people of our Defence Force need the recognition that they deserve. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal was created as an independent statutory safeguard. It's a practical mechanism to correct errors and recognise gallantry and service when the original process has fallen short. It exists precisely because military officers, like all of us, are not infallible, and because the passage of time can always bring forward important new evidence. It's a backstop that protects integrity.

Of course this bill would substantially curtail that independence and close the door to many who seek review. It imposes a 20-year time limit on applications. That would, importantly, abolish rights of review for service in the Second World War, Vietnam, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor, Iraq and the earlier years of Afghanistan. Those are exactly the cohorts for whom new materials often emerge. The tribunal itself has warned that such a limit would invalidate the overwhelming majority of the reviews it has conducted in recent years. In practice, this is not a tidy up; it's a shutdown. The bill also restricts who may apply, limiting certain honour applications to senior commanders or eye witnesses. The bill has been driven by the department whose decisions are reviewed by the tribunal. Well, it is true that departments often don't like being questioned. But it is the right thing, when new evidence emerges, to question a department or a decision that has been made, and that should continue.

Finally, there's been a striking lack of genuine consultation with the ex-service community. We've just heard from my good friend the member for Riverina, who has made the point that our RSLs and subbranches across this country are outraged at what they are seeing here. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is no evidence of a flood of frivolous claims overwhelming the system. In fact, the balance between those that have been accepted and those that have been rejected is a very reasonable one. When the tribunal has recommended upgrades, it's usually done so on the basis of rigorous evidence, not sentiment, and only after Defence's review has been fully tested. That's what an independent merits review means.

History shows why independence matters on these things. It took persistence, new evidence and, ultimately, an independent tribunal process for some of our most deserving cases to be recognised. Medals don't win wars, but they help to build the culture that does. This is incredibly important. The pride I see in our ex-servicemen and servicewomen, and in our serving men and women, whether it's on Anzac Day or at other times—we've seen it in recent weeks with the ADF's commemoration of the end of the Pacific War or, indeed, Vietnam Veterans Day. I see our veterans wearing their medals with enormous pride. I see their kids doing exactly the same—obviously wearing them in a different way. This is recognition that really matters. It goes directly to morale, to retention and attraction, and to motivation, which are all the things we need if we're going to have an effective Defence Force. From my point of view, this is one of four key imperatives for our Defence Force, alongside preparedness, agility and sovereignty. We need to have the very best people serving our nation in our Defence Force.

The opposition supports veterans' rights and the integrity of Australian honours and rewards. We will not support measures that curtail an independent merits review, impose retrospective time bars, extinguish rights or confine applications to those least likely or least able to bring them forward. To be constructive, we'll move amendments that remove the proposed 20-year limit; that maintain broad standing so that veterans, families, advocates and historians can apply—guarding against conflicts of interest and ensuring that meritorious cases are not blocked at the gate—and that require Defence to provide clear written notice of tribunal review rights whenever a decision is made to refuse, downgrade or not recommend an honour or award. These are commonsense safeguards.

As the member for Riverina said—and I pay tribute to the fact that the minister is here today in the chamber—this is an issue on which I know this side of the parliament feels very strongly. We are happy to work with the minister to set it right. We also need to be clear about what all this means in practice. If unamended, the legislation shuts the door on any further reviews, as I said earlier, of actions in the Vietnam War. We heard, from the member for Riverina a moment ago, just what that would mean. D Company actions would not have been reviewable under this bill. On 18 August 1966, members of D Company, outnumbered 20 to one, fought against extraordinary odds to defeat the Viet Cong. Any who have had a chance to see that extraordinary movie, Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan, will have seen just what those extraordinary people went through. A total of 245 VC were killed in the rubber plantation, and 18 Australians were killed and many more wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men 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 process stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases on behalf of Mr Smith that these 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery, as they should have been. Under this legislation, they would never have received the medals they were rightfully due. That would not have happened.

Exactly the same happened with Teddy Sheean, of course. At the time Teddy Sheean received a VC, the Prime Minister authored an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph urging that Sheean's immense bravery ought to have been recognised without hesitation. I quote from that:

If ever there is an image that captures the definition of courage as grace under pressure, surely … there was a deed worthy of the highest military honour …

…   …   …

Teddy Sheean deserves the Victoria Cross.

On 18 June 2020, he also said in a speech in the parliament:

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's getting a VC. That fact based process, which can be trusted, is absolutely essential to the trust that our serving men and women and veterans need to have in being part of our Defence Force.

There is a better path here, one that balances care for veterans with stewardship of the system. Of course, all of this is about making sure we have a Defence Force that can secure peace through strength, and that strength requires motivated, great people continuing to want to sign up and serve our great nation. Our message is clear. Respect our veterans, keep the tribunal independent and fix processes that need fixing, but do not extinguish rights that correct injustice. In the toughest strategic era in generations, let us send a signal to every serving member and every veteran: the parliament has your back not just in what we say but in the systems we build and defend. That is how we will move from rhetoric to readiness, put people first and earn the trust that national security demands.

See this speech in context