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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 16), omit "subsections (2) to (9)", substitute "subsections (6) and (9)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 19) to page 5 (line 27), omit subsections 110V(2) to (5).

(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 5) to page 6 (line 24), omit subsections 110V(7) and (8).

(4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 32), after item 8, insert:

8A After section 110V

Insert:

110VAAA Notification of review rights

If a reviewable decision is made, the decision maker must, in writing, notify any person who is affected by the decision of the effect of sections 110VA and 110VAA.

(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 33) to page 9 (line 24), omit the item, substitute:

9 After section 110VA

Insert:

110VAA Time limit for making an application for review

(1) An application for review of a reviewable decision can only be made within:

(a) 6 months after the day the applicant is given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision; or

(b) if the Tribunal is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that exceptional circumstances exist—such longer period as the Tribunal allows.

(2) However, an application for review of a reviewable decision can be made at any time (subject to this Part) if the applicant is not given a notice under section 110VAAA in relation to the decision.

Lest we forget—just three words, but three extraordinarily powerful words. It is the solemn promise we all make to acknowledge and respect the service of Australian Defence Force personnel and our veterans community. The sentence before that is equally poignant. The words are 'we will remember them'. Those words don't come with a use-by date. There's no caveat. There's no 'we will remember them sometimes' or 'we will remember them as long as it happened in the last 20 years'. We will remember them.

Under this legislation, the government is proposing that we will only remember them, we will only recognise their incredible service, if the action occurred in the past 20 years. That is exactly what this legislation proposes in terms of major medallic recognition of acts of bravery and gallantry that have quite rightly been reviewed by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal over the last 14 years and have resulted in some of the most celebrated Australians receiving due recognition decades—decades—after their brave action. But what this government is trying to do is cut this off at 20 years, saying, 'If your action didn't occur as Australian Defence Force personnel in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force in a more convenient timeframe for us—say, the last 20 years—I'm sorry, but you can't review any decision made by the Department of Defence in relation to honours of such great national significance.'

This is the most extraordinary overreach by the Department of Defence, and it has found a compliant minister to come in here with a rubbish piece of legislation that should not have seen the light of day. I'm sure the Department of Defence could not believe their luck when this government said, 'We'll run this one out for you and see how we go.'

But the legislation presented to us last Thursday, with no consultation, failed at the first test, and every speaker on this side of the House has recognised it. It is a solution trying to find a problem. The member for Indi pointed it out: 'What is the government trying to fix? What's broken?' Other crossbenchers spoke, and members of the Liberal Party and the National Party spoke, but the Labor MPs were missing in action. Now, on this side of the House, we know there are a lot of you. We sit here and we know there are a lot of you. You had a lot of choices—you had more than 90 choices, in fact—and you could only find one person brave enough to back up the minister, and that was the poor first-termer from Sturt! Was there a ballot? Did she get the short straw? How did this poor member for Sturt cop the short straw and have to turn up here? When the division was called this morning on the second reading motion, 90 turned up to vote. They were all here. But then they were missing in action. They had no intention of defending this pitiful piece of legislation, because they know how poorly it will be regarded by their veterans, by their service personnel and by the families in their own communities.

I say to those opposite: before you voted, you should have read the bill. You should have had a good look at it, because I can tell you now that, if you'd read the bill, you wouldn't have turned up here and voted for it. The minister knows there's been no consultation with the major veterans groups, he knows that the Australian Defence Force personnel do not support this bill, he knows the families will be furious, and yet somehow he's convinced his colleagues to come and vote for it. They heard the bells, ran in here, voted and had no idea what they had just voted for.

There would be no shame in the minister withdrawing this bill. There would be no shame in that whatsoever, because he has not given any explanation as to what he is seeking to fix with the legislation before the House today.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask this question of any member in the House: what were you doing when you were 18 or 19? I can tell you what I was doing, and I think the member for Gippsland was probably doing the same, because he's about the same vintage: rat-tat-tatting away on a typewriter, producing stories for a newspaper. What we weren't doing was rat-tat-tatting away with a gun. What we certainly weren't doing was hanging off an Oerlikon 20-millimetre cannon and firing away.

Teddy Sheean was doing that. Richard Norden was going across no-man's-land, again and again, to rescue comrades. Teddy Sheean, from the Navy, was 18 years young—just 18. It was 1 December 1942; it was the Battle of Timor. He was a Tasmanian—one of the bravest the island state has ever produced. Eighteen years! Richard Norden was 19. As in that famous song by Redgum, he was only 19. They were teenagers, mere boys, lads. As I said, Sheean fought in the Battle of Timor in 1942 and Richard Norden was in the Battle of Coral-Balmoral on 14 May 1968. Years on—decades, in fact—from their gallant actions, those two were justifiably, deservedly awarded Victoria Crosses for Australia—well, their families were, because Teddy and Richard, better known as Dick, were no longer with us. Teddy died on that day; we lost him. Dick died serving in the Australian Capital Territory Police Force, on Hindmarsh Drive in a motorcycle accident at just 24. He continued to serve, even though his days in the khaki were over.

Teddy was given what's called a Mention in Despatches. A Distinguished Conduct Medal was presented, at the time, to Dick. These were honourable awards and very well deserved, but they weren't what they should have received. What they should have received was a VC. We don't present VCs lightly in this country, nor should we, but, when we do, it's special. When we do, all the nation knows that that person, through their deeds of valour, through placing their life on the line and through their gallant actions, has saved others, has won the day and in some cases—in many cases—has caused the loss of their own life. We don't give them out lightly.

Then, of course, we had the 10 members of D Company from Long Tan. Their actions were on 18 August 1966. They were also given medallic recognition years after—half a century after, in fact—their gallant deeds. Yet now we're being told by the minister that all of those dozen awards would not have been awarded in the future. Why? It's a really easy question, but I just don't know why. I've been administering many portfolios. I've been lucky enough to do so. I know departments will often bring you their letters, their recommendations, their suggestions. You don't have to accept them all the time! You can say no—send them packing! You'll often get bureaucrats, public servants and unelected officials wanting you to change legislation. 'No' is an easy word to say when it's a dumb piece of legislation. That's what this is.

Minister, will World War II veterans or Vietnam veterans or Korea veterans have review rights under this bill that you are proposing? Will they? Why, Minister? Why? I just don't understand it. I'm a voice of what I'm sure will be many veterans and many RSL clubs. Good luck when you and members of the Labor Party who've already voted against this go out on any given commemorative day in the future. Good luck. Why, Minister?

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

To all those that continue to serve, our veterans and your families: the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifice that you have made. On Anzac Day we say, 'Lest we forget,' and we reaffirm our commitment to never forget those who've been killed in battle, died in training or succumbed to their war within back here home soil. On Remembrance Day, we say, 'The guns fell silent,' but the guns haven't fallen silent since. In world wars—World War II, Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan—our brave men and women have been there. In peace-keeping missions around the world—East Timor, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Fiji—our brave men and women have been there. In natural disasters—cyclones, fires, floods, COVID Assist—our brave men and women have been there.

I don't think it's good enough to push legislation or a bill through this place without going to the veterans and the people that we represent. Politicians are very quick, on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and any other commemorative day, to run to the closest person with medals on their chest to get a photo to put on social media, but then, when it comes to standing up for them in this parliament, they're nowhere to be seen. This bill, the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, should have Labor Defence Force veterans standing up and speaking on it, but today we didn't see that. We didn't see the courage from this government from those who have served, because they know this is a bad bill. They know that there hasn't been consultation. They know that this shouldn't be going through.

I often travel around not just the largest Defence Force electorate in the country, that being Townsville, but the country. I speak to many veterans. I've been fortunate enough to have had a coffee with many veterans who have medals of gallantry, such as Victoria Crosses. I've spoken to families of loved ones who have been posthumously awarded these honours. Today, I thought: 'I'm not just going to get up and speak about this bill, when we are debating it; I'm going to call some of these people. I'm going to call those that have been given a great honour—a great honour for their actions on the battlefield.' A great honour is what they are to this nation. I asked them: 'Have you heard about it? Did your RSL send it to you? Did the ex-service organisation you're a part of circulate it? Did they send out the letter or the transcript or any sort of communication that they may have received from this Labor government?' All said, 'I've never heard of this; this is news to me.'

One person, Justin Huggett MG, who got a medal of gallantry for fighting in Afghanistan with the Brits on Long Look, laughed when I said it. He said: 'That's not real. That's not a thing. You're jigging me up.' He used more colourful language. He was a good platoon sergeant. If you've ever put a bill through this place that he hasn't agreed with, you would definitely know about it. He gives me free advice. But this one bill, this bit of legislation—he couldn't comprehend that this would actually be a thing, because it hasn't been circulated widely throughout the veterans community. And these are people that have the honours.

Now, Afghanistan isn't 20 years past the end of its campaign. But it will be one day. It does take time for people to talk about and remember those significant battles for which these awards would be awarded. My question to the minister is this: what veterans specifically have you spoken to before you brought this bill to this place?

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

I did pause just for a moment to check whether any members opposite were keen to join in the consideration in detail, but I couldn't see anyone on their feet. I will yield if anyone from the other side wants to speak. I'm quite happy to yield. It is clearly not going to be a situation we have to worry about here this evening, because, again, they're missing in action.

The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 came before the House last Thursday and was debated today, with one speaker from those opposite. But, on this side of the House, including on the crossbench, every speaker has been asking the same question of the minister and the Prime Minister: what is the actual problem the Albanese government is trying to fix with this flawed legislation? What is the actual problem? You couldn't explain it to the crossbench. I had a briefing on Monday, and no-one could explain to me then what was so badly broken that meant you had to abolish the capacity of a statutory agency—a tribunal, in fact—to review decisions dating back decades. If you couldn't explain to me in that briefing what you were trying to fix, why would you expect the people on this side of the chamber to vote for it?

As it turned out, everyone in the chamber voted against it, apart from the Labor Party. The crossbench, the Liberals and the Nationals all voted against it. That's because our system of honours and awards simply isn't broken. The government has not made the case. It isn't broken. This has been a bipartisan position for the entire time that the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal has been in existence—and all credit to the former Gillard government for bringing the tribunal into play in 2011. It brought an end to years and decades of demands for medallic recognition without a proper process for people to pursue that recognition. What it means to have the tribunal is that an action can be brought to the attention of the Department of Defence and it can be considered. And if in fact Defence says no to, say, a Teddy Sheean or a Richard Norden or the likes of Delta Company at Long Tan, if the department says no, then it is allowed to be reviewed by the tribunal, an independent statutory body established by the Labor party for just this purpose. And it has worked. It is not broken.

Teddy Sheean would not get a VC under this legislation, because his decision would never have been reviewed, because it was outside the 20-year time limit. Richard Norden would never have gotten a VC under this legislation—again, it's outside the 20-year time limit. And Commander Harry Smith's brave troops at Long Tan would never have been recognised, because that action occurred in the Vietnam War, outside the 20-year limitation.

I would like as much as possible to be bipartisan on veterans issues, but the Labor Party has not established a good reason for this reform. The tribunal members, in my direct experience as veterans minister, have acted with diligence, with integrity and with professionalism. They have made weighty decisions about medals. They haven't been out there handing out medals in Weeties packets. They have been exploring these very difficult cases, objectively assessing the cases and then deciding what recommendation they would put forward to government. They weren't handing out Victoria Crosses lightly; I can promise you that.

The capacity to review decisions made by Defence is a design feature of the tribunal, which was established in 2011. This bill strips rights away from ADF personnel, veterans and families. The minister continues—he did it again today—to pretend that families will have the right to review of an honour under this legislation, which is simply not true. Look at your second reading speech, Minister.

If you want to talk, get to the dispatch box. You are not telling the truth when it comes to families. Prior to the election, why didn't the Prime Minister tell veterans and the families of veterans from World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and numerous other conflicts that he intended to remove their right to appeal Defence decisions regarding these major honours and awards? If you were so proud of the legislation, Minister, why wouldn't you have taken it to the election and tested it with the Australian people in the first place?

There is no use-by date on, 'We will remember them.' There is not, 'We will remember them sometimes.' This 20-year timeframe is a complete and utter farce. No wonder that Labor Party members opposite are not in here to speak to try to defend it. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Gillard government did some good things. And Julia Gillard, had she been given more of an opportunity, would have been a great Prime Minister, but unfortunately we had that cabal of the Greens at the time with the Democrats and others—anyway. She brought in a couple of things which were quite good. One was the Soils Advocate.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister for Veterans' Affairs on a point of order.

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

I'm sure this contribution to the great sum of human knowledge by the member for Riverina will be amazing, but it's not relevant to the amendments before the House, so I draw that to your attention. If he could be relevant.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am listening carefully. I ask the member for Riverina to try and be relevant on the amendments.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's about the minister backflipping on two things which were very good in the Gillard government. He wants to shut me down; I'm talking about positives about the Gillard government. One was the National Soils Advocate, and the other was the ability to review decisions taken not to give veterans medals. They were two good decisions made by the Gillard government. If a Labor minister wants to say that a Nationals member who's praising a former Labor prime minister is not within the standing orders, well, good luck with that. You might have to answer to your future Labor caucus.

What really galls me is the fact that we've got a situation where the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, an independent statutory body, was established in 2011 under the Gillard government. And it was a good thing, as the shadow minister for veterans affairs has just outlined. It was put in place under the Defence Act to consider defence honours and awards matters, and it has both a review and an inquiry function. What the minister proposes to do with this legislation is allow it to overturn decisions made, but only to allow reviews in a 20-year timeframe. That will ensure that veterans who fought in Vietnam, Korea and certainly World War II will not have their actions able to be considered.

As of mid-2025, DHAAT reported, it had conducted 483 reviews, of which it had affirmed the original Defence decision 283 times and had triggered a change in decision on 136 occasions, with the remaining withdrawn for consideration. This represents about a quarter of decisions taken to the tribunal having been wrongly decided by Defence, because the decisions were overturned, only further proving the importance of the tribunal. In those cases which were overturned, those awardees deserved their recognition, but, under the situation that the minister is proposing, they will not be considered unless it's within that 20-year timeframe, and that is such a shame. As the shadow minister quite correctly pointed out, some veterans don't like to talk of their war service. But I'll tell you what they do want to do, and that is make sure that their comrades who have gone above and beyond with their gallant actions are recognised. If they deserve to have the awards that they were given uplifted, or, indeed, to be given an award that they weren't presented at the time, if it's not done within that 20-year timeframe, they won't get it.

The minister who is proposing this needs to really think about the loyalty, the service, the sacrifice, that these people have made for and on behalf of our nation, for and on behalf of our flag, for and on behalf of what we are here for, and that is to ensure that we give a free and fair and democratic society a fair go. This isn't giving veterans a fair go. This isn't giving the RSLs a fair go. Australia should be all about a fair go. I again ask the minister: why have you reached this decision? We're not seeing any Labor member, apart from the first-term member for Sturt, backing you up, Minister. I ask again: why has this decision been taken? Why are you backing up the bureaucrats instead of backing up the veterans, backing up the RSLs, backing up the communities who quite rightly think that this would be an absolute poor decision made in haste? (Time expired)

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

'For the most conspicuous gallantry and a pre-eminent act of valour in the presence of the enemy during a Japanese aerial attack on HMAS Armidale in the Timor Sea on 1 December 1942.' On 1 December 1942, during operations in the Timor Sea, HMAS Armidale came under aerial bombardment and torpedo attack from Japanese aircraft. Shortly after the commencement of the attack, Armidale was hit by a torpedo and began listing to port. One minute later, the ship was hit by a second torpedo which broke the vessel's back, causing the captain to order, 'Abandon ship!'

Ordinary Seaman Sheean, one of the youngest and most junior ranked members of Armidale's ship's company, made his way to the stowage position of the motorboat and assisted in its launch. As the enemy continued to fire upon the ship and his shipmates, who were already in the water, Ordinary Seaman Sheean decided to forgo his opportunity for survival by not abandoning the ship and by returning to his action station to man the gun, where he was the loader, not the gunner. Despite being wounded, he strapped himself into the gun and commenced firing at the enemy, damaging at least two enemy aircraft.

Ordinary Seaman Sheean's actions disrupted and distracting the enemy from strafing and killing his defenceless shipmates in the water. He sacrificed his life to save his shipmates and, despite his wounds, continued firing the gun until the ship sank and took him to his death. His pre-eminent act of valour and his most conspicuous gallantry saved Australian lives. His heroism became the standard to which the men and women of the Australian Defence Force aspire.

That act of bravery and gallantry is something that you read about or watch in movies. Under this bill, sadly, Teddy Sheean would not have been recognised with his VC. My question to the minister, halfway through this, is: under this bill, would Teddy Sheean be posthumously awarded the VC? As I read and understand it—I know I'm just a simple soldier—this bill would not allow that because it is outside the 20-year parameters and it's outside of what the bill clearly states. I do not think it is appropriate that brave war heroes like Teddy Sheean be forgotten. This bill will do that.

I reflected today in my speech. When I was wounded overseas—I sent the video to my medic—I was flown back and was laying on my back after being blown up by a bomb in the ground. My medic, Tom Howell, jumped through the dust and the flames with no regard to his own safety. He put his life at risk and did that without thinking about himself. He did it for his mate. I still haven't sat down and gone through this with him. We haven't had the discussion, because when you think of what happens in war you don't automatically go, 'Someone should get a medal here.' I can tell you there was no senior officer on that mission. They weren't there; they spent less time outside the wire than anyone else. There were a bunch of enlisted soldiers there. I fear that if someone were to sit down, 20 years post the Afghanistan war, go through the heroism and gallant actions of the brave people and want an assessment done, that that assessment simply couldn't be done. I think it's silly that the CDF, a senior officer or the minister, who takes guidance from the CDF, would agree to that. This is a bad bill.

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

I'd just like to check to make sure no-one else wants the call. I do respect the right of other members to speak, and I thought members of the Labor Party, having realised the gravity of the bill before the chamber tonight, for consideration in detail, would be putting down their glasses and rushing down to the chamber to make a contribution, but that's clearly not the case.

The minister has tried to claim that the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal itself wanted the changes which are included in the bill. In his second reading speech, the minister said:

After well more than a decade of operation, it is necessary to ensure that the tribunal remains fit for purpose and to address a number of concerns that have been raised by the tribunal itself and others over time in relation to its operation.

That sounds reasonable. But what would you expect next? After saying that the tribunal has raised issues and that others, over time, have raised issues, you'd think the minister would produce some evidence to make his case. You'd think that that's what he'd do. But the speech goes on with no further reference to any great contribution from the tribunal about asking to have itself cut off at the knees. There's no mention of that. So I wanted to check what the tribunal has been saying. It was very interesting to read the evidence given by the tribunal to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system. In that inquiry, the tribunal actually exposed the minister's deception from his second reading speech, because the tribunal expressed its opposition to a 20-year timeframe being imposed on it. It specifically expressed its opposition to the 20-year timeframe. Yet, in the minister's second reading speech, apparently the tribunal wants the changes.

An honourable member: It doesn't add up.

I don't know. What's true? Perhaps, if the minister had expanded on his claim about the tribunal wanting the changes, we could test his reference point. But no. We had the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system, and the tribunal specifically told the Senate inquiry that introducing a 20-year time limit for a tribunal review would '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 refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award'. It can't be any clearer: the tribunal that the Labor Party is trying to cut off at the knees here tonight has said expressly that it does not support the imposition of a 20-year time limit on the assessment of reviews for Defence honours and awards, and the reason why it doesn't want that 20-year time limit, from my experience in dealing with the tribunal, is that its members have always acted diligently, professionally and with integrity, and they have done a difficult job very, very well. They have an objective. They have searched through additional information and research and reports, and they have come up with decisions which have stood the test of public scrutiny. I know they've stood the test of public scrutiny because this minister, his prime minister and his defence minister are all happily out there cheering it on when Teddy Sheean gets a VC or Richard Norden gets a VC, because the tribunal had the capacity to review decisions made by Defence dating back decades.

I'll say it again: 'We will remember them' does not have a use-by date. It's not, 'We will remember them sometimes,' 'We will remember them when it's convenient,' or, 'We will remember them as long as it happened in the last 20 years.' 'We will remember them' is our solemn oath and our duty to recognise and respect servicemen and servicewomen throughout our nation's history, and this tribunal has the capacity to review Defence decisions dating back decades for a very good reason. So I ask the minister: why is the government ignoring the advice of an independent statutory agency and taking rights of appeal away from Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families? (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of my most recent proudest moments as a parliamentarian was standing beside the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on Remembrance Day, 11 November, last year, when Richard Leslie Norden of Gundagai was announced as the latest Victoria Cross for Australia recipient. The actions for which Dick Norden received the award came at the Battle of Coral-Balmoral.

On 12 May 1968, Australian and New Zealand forces set up Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral in Bien Hoa, Vietnam. As part of the daily routine at FSB Coral, Richard Norden took part in infantry patrols, where the soldiers ventured kilometres away from base doing reconnaissance and seeking contact with the enemy. On 14 May, Richard's platoon sustained heavy fire during one of a series of contacts outside the FSBs, and these contacts were part of the larger Battle of Coral-Balmoral. Using his pluck and showing care for his mates, he rescued a wounded soldier and recovered the body of another with little cover and under intense enemy fire. The rifleman's audacious actions prevented further casualties; he saved lives.

Army headquarters announced the names of Australian casualties in the Bien Hoa reconnaissance, with the Canberra Times reporting Richard as 'wounded but in a satisfactory condition'. Amongst the many 1RAR who were wounded that week, but in a very satisfactory condition, were two of Riverina interest: Private John Milton Rands, 21, single, of Temora; and—wait for this; the Nationals in the room will be keen to know this—one Second Lieutenant Timothy Andrew Fischer, 22, single, of Boree Creek—later, of course, Australia's 10th deputy prime minister. I rang Tim's widow, Judy Brewer, earlier this year and recalled the fact that Richard and her late husband were in different platoons, but, as she reminded me, they were still good mates.

When Richard returned to Australia, he continued serving with the Australian Army. Nineteen years young he was. He was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal, and that is etched in gold on the cenotaph on the eastern end of Sheridan Street—facing Canberra, if you like. I encourage the minister, when the statue on Sheridan Street is unveiled next May, to come along and take a look for himself, because those initials etched in gold, DCM, are going to be replaced with VC. They should have been VC back in 1968. He got a Distinguished Conduct Medal, and he was very proud of that, but he should have gotten Australia's highest military honour.

Thankfully, and appropriately, because we had a system in place—a process, a pathway—he has now posthumously—because he died in a motorcycle crash patrolling with the ACT police when he was 24—been awarded, or his family were awarded, a Victoria Cross for Australia. The minister and I were there that day, along with Prime Minister Albanese and the Governor-General, Sam Mostyn AC, when that announcement was made. I was very proud, and I'm sure the minister was too; he's nodding. He was very proud, and he made some very good comments. But, Minister, had that process, that pathway, not been in place—and, under this bill that you are proposing and that you've put before the House, it will not be in the future—the Richard Nordens of the world would not be granted a Victoria Cross for Australia.

This is wrong. This is not right. This is not Australian, and I just don't understand why, when there are so many other things we could be discussing, you've brought this bill, as a minister, to this place. It's not too late, Minister, to admit that this bill should not be taking effect. It's not too late to say that you were wrong. It's not too late, and I'm sure we will not criticise it as coalition members if you do admit that this is not, and will never be, the correct time to put in place this sort of legislation, which would prevent the Richard Nordens of the world getting their rightful recognition.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Gippsland be agreed to.