Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

To all those that continue to wear the uniform and to our veterans and their families: the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard-fought battles, wars and sacrifices that you have made. On Anzac Day we say, 'Lest we forget.' We reaffirm our commitment to always remember those that have been killed in action, have died in training or have succumbed to their war within back here on home soil. On Remembrance Day we say the guns fell silent, but the guns haven't fallen silent since. In natural disasters—fires, floods and cyclones—our brave men and women are there. In peacekeeping missions—East Timor, Fiji and Solomon Islands—our brave men and women are there. In combat operations—Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea and many more—our brave men and women were there. It's our job in this parliament to make sure that we pass legislation that supports our current serving and our veterans—those that stand up for us, those that are there when they're called.

As a whole, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 looks fine from the outset, but there are parts of this bill that I personally don't agree with. I don't believe that, if someone has put a claim in and it gets reviewed by the Veterans' Review Board, there needs to be a notice sent to the Chief of the Defence Force. There are already mechanisms in place for reportables. For example, if someone is a truckie and they have a drug problem and have spoken to a professional—they have gone through their process and put a claim in—that is their reportable, which would then go through to the unit and subsequently other people to make sure that that they are now not in the position where they could put someone's life at risk. We want to encourage people to see a mental health professional through non-liability health care. We want to encourage those who are doing it tough to be able to speak to someone without fear of their career being halted or of not being able to continue to serve.

For example, if someone has had a marriage breakdown—let's say a platoon sergeant in an infantry unit has had a marriage breakdown and it was decided through the advocate that it was to do with their service—they would then go through the claims process. If they found themselves at the Veterans' Review Board, I don't think it's an appropriate measure to then go to the Chief of the Defence Force with a notification that a platoon sergeant has sought professional help, has got that help and has gone to the VRB. If that now sits with the CDF, I think that's a gross overreach, because I would hate for that then to go back down the chain and lead to a situation where now that platoon sergeant can't become a warrant officer class 2 or can't be on deployment or receive promotion. We've seen it happen in real life where someone may not be travelling well. They're okay—they're functioning and ready to do their job—but, because of a kneejerk reaction because of bad policy, they get put on a no-weapons chit and can't go out in the field and can't deploy—all these things as an unintended consequence because we haven't properly gone through the legislation and policy that we do here. I don't want to slow down the passage of this, because it is part of the recommendations from the royal commission, but there are unintended consequences of not doing it right. I think having the VRB as the crux to notify the Chief of the Defence Force becomes quite challenging.

I also don't believe that this has been taken out to the veteran or ADF community to ask what they think. Let's look at who this will affect the most. This will affect the private soldier. This will affect the sailor and the aviator. This is not going to affect the senior officers. These unintended consequences will sit with the enlisted. As a former private soldier—never promoted—and now sitting here, I can feel the anxiety that they will have about something like this. Now, I've heard that there are other parts of provisions and bills that have a recommendation—or a kneejerk—that go to the CDF. I've heard people talk about that. Well, that's probably still a problem too. I don't know that saying it happens in other places means we should let it go through here. I do think that Darren Chester and his office have done some great work going through this. I spent some time last night working and talking through it with Angus Taylor, who has taken up that part of the portfolio at the moment.

Whilst I believe this is well intentioned, and whilst we don't want to stop these miscellaneous measures going through, I do think that that we must take heed and ask: what is the unintended consequence here? If someone has a drug problem or an alcohol problem, or if someone has any sort of reportable that's already in legislation now, when they get that help—whether it goes through the VRB, DVA or anything—it is mandatory for the healthcare professional to report it into the chain of command, because there's a safety issue. You can't drive your truck in the morning if you're drinking in the morning. You can't handle weapons if you're addicted to ice. There will be supports and help for those people that have these addictions and problems. But, if you've had a marriage breakdown or if you've returned from a deployment and you're going through a bit of a tough time, but you can still operate and do your job and there isn't a mandatory reportable, I don't think the CDF needs to open his email—or her email—and see that Private Such-and-such has gone through the VRB for a mental health concern or gone through the non-liability healthcare system. If that gets reported back to the chief, I just think it's an overreach. I think it's more red tape, and I want to make sure that our brave men and women feel comfortable and confident to be able to continue to serve and do their job with whatever it may be. The coalition has our position on this, and the shadow minister read it out last night.

In closing, I just want to say that we serve here on the back of our brave men and women who've served this nation. We have the privilege and the freedoms to be able to pass laws and legislation and live freely in this country because of our brave men and women. I want to make sure we're keeping warfighters warfighting. I want to make sure we're keeping our service personnel fit and happy to be able to continue to do their job. I don't want this to hang over their heads so people question whether they should get help or not. It's one fear that I do have. I think if this were taken out to the public, to those currently serving—not to the veteran community, because it's not for them; it's for our still-serving Defence Force personnel—then we would get similar feedback. We do plan on working with the government and with the minister. I know this has already been raised with him. I do note the other member in the House and her service as well. This isn't from a place of anger or fight. This is just from a place of thinking, and we need to find our place where we can land to make sure that we're not fighting and we're here to serve the people that send us here and our Australian Defence Force personnel.

See this speech in context