Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I think it's good to have an interjection from the government benches, because I don't see too many members of the government lining up. There's been one speaker. That's a big indicator to me as a crossbencher, to be truthful. When there's a government bill introduced and there is nobody on the government side willing to stand up and speak to it—it's a dead giveaway, actually. The government says that this bill will protect the integrity of the defence honours and awards system, but it actually hasn't laid out why this is even necessary. Where is the compelling case? The tribunal itself has not asked for change. Its case load has not meaningfully changed in recent years. The tribunal receives approximately 30 requests for review each year. This is hardly overwhelming. They haven't sought to have a problem remedied because there has been no problem identified.

When I assess legislation in this place, that's the very first question I ask: what's the problem that we're trying to solve here? Why are we creating a new law—or amending another one—and coming into the parliament to seek to solve a problem when there is no problem that has been clearly identified here? In relation to this bill, the government, I'm sorry to say—and I mean this genuinely, actually—just hasn't laid out a compelling case for reform. The tribunal, as I said, has not asked for these reforms. And, certainly, the veterans and their advocacy groups have not asked for reform.

When I'm looking at legislation, I also ask the next question, which is: if there is a problem—and here we can't see that there truly is one, but if there were one—are the proposed changes ethical and do they represent good governance? On this measure, again, I'm completely unconvinced because this bill will result in less agency for veterans and their families to seek review of decisions made by the Department of Defence. In what world do we, as parliamentarians, seek to reduce the amount of agency that our veterans have, when we've seen so many examples of the implications of reduced agency on veterans' mental and physical health? I'm really perplexed by this. As I said, RSL groups in my electorate have really deep concerns about what this would mean and were absolutely blindsided that this was even being debated in the House today.

These are the kinds of bills I take to my constituents to ask them their views of. Well, it's pretty hard to ask them at this late stage. Many members over on this side—in the middle and on the crossbench—have talked about how important it is that we respect and that we honour our veterans. They've talked about what it means every time we stand beside them at significant national events like Anzac Day, like Remembrance Day and, in fact, only recently Vietnam Veterans' Day. They've talked about the pride with which our veterans carry their medals and awards; the pride with which their families stand beside them; and, in fact, the humility that those of us who have not served have when we see our veterans on these significant national days—let alone when they are actually representing our country, abroad, at wartime.

I want to say that I support the member for Gippsland's amendments to this legislation again. He's come into the parliament with some solutions, with amendments that I think are significant and would make a big difference, and I support those. But, as I stand before you right now, with an unclear case for change—and, I think, very likely negative impacts for veterans in my electorate of Indi and right across Australia—I simply cannot support this bill in its current form.

See this speech in context