Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I do thank the opportunity to rise on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. In accordance with the previous speaker, I acknowledge this is a very important bill, particularly as Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. That's an opinion shared by the Prime Minister, the defence minister and those on this side of the House. You only need to open the newspaper on a daily basis to see reports of conflict in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other activities including grey zone activities in the Taiwan Strait and recent events closer to home on our shores involving the Chinese defence activities in the Tasman Sea, the circumnavigation of Australia, the release of flares near the P-8 Poseidon and sonar activities impacting Australian divers. I recently returned from a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan, where we were given some further insights into the types of coercive activity being experienced in Taiwan from mainland China. So there is no question the strategic environment is uncertain, and the coalition does support the principle of this bill to strengthen the parliamentary oversight of defence, provided the government remains both bipartisan and serious in its intent. We are quite unique here in Australia by not having an oversight committee of this nature for defence among our AUKUS partners, so I think it is time for such an approach. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence must build confidence in defence and not become another platform for political games.

There's a lot to be gained by increasing understanding in this place of our Australian Defence Force and how it operates. I really do need to note that this week we have the privilege of 47 Australian Defence Force personnel in the parliament as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. The genesis of that program was in 2001 when it was acknowledged there were not many members of parliament with direct defence experience. Coming out of World War II, members of parliament were likely to have served or had immediate family members who had served. But by 2001 it was not the case and the decision was made to establish the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. That program allows members of parliament to spend some time embedded with our Australian Defence Force. It could be on patrol, it could be on exercises, back in the base or it could be internationally. That allowed members of parliament to have those experiences to increase their understanding of how the Australian Defence Force works on the ground.

The reciprocal of that is the opportunity for Defence Force personnel to spend a week in parliament. I think they get the rough end of the deal. We get out and about and have some time in incredible locations where they are based and they get to spend a week in Canberra. But nevertheless, from the conversations I have had with many of the participants this week, I have gained some additional knowledge. They have shared their insights into their jobs and what they are doing in the defence of our nation, and I want to thank them for that. I want to thank them for being so forthright but also thank them for their service to the country. The men and women who put on the uniform and sign up to place themselves in harm's way if required are doing that to secure the freedoms we enjoy today. I think this defence joint committee has the potential to add to that mutual understanding and to strengthen those links between this building, the Parliament of Australia, and the men and women who serve in uniform. But this new committee must not add to bureaucracy; it must enhance it. It must provide a trusted forum to scrutinise programs and delivery without undermining Australia's national security or strategic objectives.

I would hasten to suggest that if this joint committee was in existence already, we would have saved ourselves—we certainly would have saved the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel—from quite an unseemly debacle which is unfolding in relation to his changes to the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. What we've seen with this bill could have been avoided if there were a committee in place to provide full and frank advice to government members before it got to the point of legislation being on the floor of the chamber.

Yesterday, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs suggested that my blood pressure was increasing and that I was particularly agitated about the issue. I want to assure the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that my blood pressure is the least of his worries. The people in our veterans' community and Australian Defence Force personnel are furious about the changes he's proposing through the legislation. If he had actually engaged with the veterans' community, ex-service organisations or current serving Australian Defence Force members, he would have known within a minute or two that this bill is unloved because it takes away the rights of veterans and ADF personnel to seek a review of Department of Defence decisions.

Yesterday, in the chamber, the minister accused me of creating anxiety and uncertainty. He thinks—I appreciate the flattery, Minister—that I have the power to concoct the action which is coming his way from the organisations which are opposed to his legislation. He flatters me enormously to think that I have that capacity, because there were 63 submissions to the Senate inquiry into the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal changes, and 62 of those submissions were against it. If the minister seriously thinks that I have enough time to write 62 submissions and send them out to different organisations to sign and send them back in, he has a much higher view of my capacity than anyone in my office does. There were 63 submissions; 62 were against it. The only organisation that wrote in favour of the legislation was the Department of Defence. The Department of Defence wrote the legislation, so, thankfully, they still back their own legislation.

What we've seen in the context of the need for additional oversight of defence is that this legislation came to the chamber with no consultation, a complete lack of respect for current serving personnel and our veterans community and their families, and there is no support in the broader community. When the legislation made it before the chamber, the minister spoke and introduced the bill and those on our side spoke. How many of the 93 backbenchers for the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives were coming in, charging behind the minister and backing him up on this most important legislation? Was it 20, 30, 40? One—one member spoke in favour of the bill. The first term member for Sturt must have copped the talking points and was dragged in there to speak in support of the bill. But when it came time to vote, they all turned up. They all voted for it. I fear that they didn't really know what they were voting for. Because if they knew what they were voting for, they wouldn't have supported it.

Again, the minister suggests that I have the capacity to create anxiety and uncertainty in relation to this bill, but evidence to the tribunal from independent sources suggests that it's not just me who is frustrated and angry by the government's approach to this issue. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, the independent statutory agency established by the Gillard-Rudd government, by the Labor Party, in 2011, submitted to the inquiry that these changes would—and I quote:

… 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 …

That's the independent statutory agency saying that rights are being stripped from current ADF members, veterans and their families.

RSL NSW said the bill is 'disgraceful' and gave evidence to the inquiry saying:

We feel this Bill [is] detrimental, not only to veterans' mental and physical health when seeking reviews, but also to the value placed on their service …

It goes on. I could read quotes to you all day. The tribunal made an important point in its submission in terms of the context of the bill about defence oversight. The tribunal highlighted defence overreach in relation to this issue. It said:

The Tribunal believes that the purpose of defence honours and awards is not just to make ADF members and veterans feel good about their service, or to provide solace to the families of deceased members and veterans, but to signify the nation's respect and appreciation of those who have served on its behalf—and especially those who have served with gallantry or distinction or conspicuously. Abolishing appeal rights against the refusal of defence honours in the manner proposed in the Bill would, in the view of the Tribunal, undermine that purpose and thereby detract significantly from the integrity of the defence honours and awards system.

This is the independent agency. The minister says that I'm capable of creating uncertainty and anxiety, but his own statutory agency is saying that the legislation before the House would detract significantly from the integrity of the Defence honours and awards system.

Instead of just pulling the bill in the wake of the Senate inquiry, in the wake of the submissions, where 62 out of 63 are against it, now the minister is doubling down. He's delaying the reporting date to 21 November. The Senate inquiry is meant to report today, but the minister, in what could only be seen as an act of complete arrogance, believes he's going to be able to convince people on the crossbench that he can polish this enough that it won't stink quite as much. We're saying to the minister to just bin this disgraceful bill.

His own backbench have started distancing themselves from the legislation because it is a solution looking for a problem. The reason I know his backbenchers are distancing themselves from it is that yesterday I asked the minister to name just one veteran who supported the legislation. As I sat down, I thought, 'Clearly, he's just going to name his own backbenchers,' but he couldn't even do that. He couldn't name the member for Spence or the member for Solomon, because I don't think they support the bill either. So the minister stood up and failed to name a single veteran in Australia who supports his bill.

The untruths are starting to catch up with this minister, because he also said yesterday that Teddy Sheean would still be able to get a VC under this legislation, which is not true. Under the legislation that went through the House of Reps and will get to the Senate at some point, there is no pathway for Sheean or Richard Norton or Harry Smith's troops at Long Tan to receive their medals for conspicuous gallantry.

See this speech in context