Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. I'd especially like to commend the member for Sturt, the member for Wentworth and the member for Indi for the very considered remarks that they provided.

I have been concerned, however, by what has frankly been a bit of a hyperbolic reaction by the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, given his prior role as the then minister for defence personnel. I know, as a minister for defence personnel—admittedly, for a period some 20 days shorter than the shadow minister's, so far—that I take that role incredibly seriously, especially when it comes to approving recommendations to be made for defence honours, whether they are in their initial form or it's when they are coming to me from Defence—when Defence has conducted a review upon an application—or when they come to me from the honours and awards tribunal, having reviewed a decision from Defence. These are serious and important matters. So it does concern me that the shadow minister says that he has not received a briefing when, this week, his office did receive a briefing. It is interesting that the shadow minister for veterans' affairs is the one leading this debate, not the shadow minister with actual portfolio responsibility in this House: the shadow minister for defence.

It is important to remember that Australia is the only Commonwealth country that even has a tribunal of this nature. The question here before the House, in dealing with this legislation, is not about what has occurred previously with recommendations that might have been dealt with differently if these amendments had been in place earlier; there was never any intention that these amendments would be in place earlier. These amendments are about how the tribunal operates into the future—and only into the future. That is important to remember. The opposition seems to be deliberately misconstruing what this bill does. The bill still leaves open all the avenues for a minister to refer to the tribunal an inquiry into any matter, regardless of the timing, that may relate to defence honours or awards. It doesn't in any way affect the independence of the tribunal. In fact, if anything, it provides enhancements to the independence of the tribunal.

Ex-service organisations were consulted when it came to these amendments, and the RSL was involved in those discussions. In addition to that, the nature of the amendments brought forward in this bill was actually outlined in a Senate inquiry at the end of last year. And, of course, there will be more opportunity for input from all interested parties, including the opposition, the RSL, any other ex-service organisations, veterans and any others, through other parliamentary processes that will occur in the passage of this bill through the parliament.

I also want to make one particularly important reference to the fact that the opposition has made a lot out of quoting statements made by the now prime minister with respect to the VC awarded to Teddy Sheean. What's important to recognise is the context in which those comments were made. The comments were made by the now prime minister after the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal had recommended the awarding of a VC for Australia to Teddy Sheean when the then prime minister had refused to act on that recommendation and had instead instituted a wholly separate and different inquiry into the recommendation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. That is what undermines the independence and operation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. That is why the Prime Minister was calling for that, and it's this independence that we are in no way undermining. It stands in quite big distinction to the case of another recent VC recipient that the opposition have been referring to, Private Norden. When the government received the recommendation from the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal that he be awarded a VC for Australia, the government acted on that recommendation from the tribunal and proceeded with that VC.

A key issue here is that nothing that this bill does stops anyone from applying to Defence for a defence honour or award; it goes to what the tribunal does. The tribunal asked government. The tribunal has said, in its own decisions, that the time period that it currently covers—from 1939—and the evidential issues that arise in looking back at conduct that occurred that long ago cause it significant concern and difficulty. This bill proposes that that be constricted by a 20-year limit from the end of the relevant operations. This is something that's also being misconstrued by the opposition. It's not 20 years from now; it's 20 years from the end of the relevant exercise, which means, for people who were participating in the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan, it doesn't exclude the beginning of those operations, because it's 20 years from the end of those operations.

That does provide quite a lot of time, and I understand that people may take different views on how long that period should be. That'll no doubt be something considered by a Senate committee. But that is not a reason—and no reasons have been given—to not seek to constrain the time period that the tribunal looks at from its current jurisdiction all the way back to 1939. As I said before, the tribunal itself identified the problems with looking at conflicts all the way back to 1939. Veterans and those in Defence are also concerned that the tribunal looking back that far means it could apply a 21st-century standard and approaches to conflicts that occurred more than half a century ago. It also gives rise to a degree of unfairness, where somebody can seek review through the tribunal and the outcome that is received by two different defence personnel will be based not on what actually occurred and the conduct but on the vagaries of what records may or may not exist now, where there are no living witnesses to provide evidence.

Some have also sought, I might add, to close the rolls on these conflicts—to rule a line under them, just as occurs in the United Kingdom—so that no other honours and awards could ever be awarded in respect of those conflicts. This legislation and this government do not propose to do that. That is still left open.

The other key issue that arises is this anathema that exists in the current legislation, which is the concept that an honour could be applied for by a person who is seeking the honour for themselves. That is the devil that the restriction on who can seek review is seeking to address. It restricts it to somebody who was in some way involved in the action—in commanding it or witnessing it. But it also recognises that a person may not wish to have such an honour bestowed on them, and that is why, even if a witness or someone in command seeks a review, they also need to have the permission or consent of the person or, where they are no longer alive, their family. The other restraint is to put a stop to the increasing number of people, like historians and academics, that we are seeing seeking reviews when they have no connection to the relevant events in question.

I was clear on that in the second reading speech. These are the nature of the restrictions. I did not any way mislead in my second reading speech.

See this speech in context