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

I welcome the opportunity to speak in relation to the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. Firstly, I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025

(Mr Chester)

(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.

Now, wherever possible, the coalition will seek to find some common ground and a bipartisan position on veterans issues but, sadly, not on this occasion. The opposition is moving amendments today in relation to the key reforms as outlined in the minister's second reading speech because, quite frankly, he has made no case for change to the operation of a tribunal which has operated effectively for the past 14 years and was actually created by the former Labor government. Quite simply, the legislation before the House is stripping rights from Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families.

From my direct experience as the former minister, this tribunal has acted diligently, professionally and with the utmost integrity. I say at the outset, I have literally no idea why the Labor Party has blundered down this pathway without any consultation or any input from this side of the House, the veteran community, their families, historians or any other interested parties. Even worse, the minister's second reading speech was deceptive and selective, even pretending the tribunal had called for these proposed changes. The only organisation that would support this unwelcome intrusion into the independence of this statutory agency would be the defence department, because it has never accepted the principle that a tribunal should be allowed to review decisions of senior officers, particularly in relation to honours for gallantry.

This legislation appears to me an example of a government which has run out of puff in just four months. It is a solution looking for a problem. As a former minister, I'm not aware of any stakeholders—again, apart from senior Defence officers—who are critical of the current operations of the tribunal. In fact, it's quite the opposite. In my experience, the members of the tribunal have always acted with incredible diligence, professionalism and integrity. They have taken their job over the past 14 years very seriously. They have weighed up often very complex issues, carefully considered the consequences of their recommendations and then made recommendations which were both balanced and responsible. It's not like this tribunal have been handing out medals without giving due consideration to the many complex issues that they have encountered over the years.

In his second reading speech, the minister claims:

… 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 then proceeds to give absolutely no examples of any concerns raised by the tribunal itself.

In fact, it's quite the opposite. The tribunal actually gave evidence to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system that it was strongly opposed to the key change proposed in this legislation before the chamber today. In relation to Defence's proposal to introduce a 20-year time limit for tribunal reviews, the tribunal actually expressed its strong opposition to and significant concerns for that proposal. The tribunal went on to explain that it would render invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by the tribunal between 2020 and 2023 and said in its submission:

… if implemented, would be to 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.

This is the crux of the coalition's opposition to the bill before the House today. It actually seeks to curtail the rights of Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families simply because Defence doesn't like this tribunal. Defence gave evidence at the same Senate inquiry and recommended changes to the tribunal, and the minister has blindly followed that advice. Again, it is contrary to the evidence given at the inquiry, which stated the establishment of the tribunal to consider unsuccessful awards and honours nominations was a unique feature of the Australian system and provided an additional level of accountability. Evidence to the Senate inquiry showed support for and confidence in the work of the tribunal, and, again, I quote the report, which said:

Overwhelmingly, inquiry participants valued the independent nature of the tribunal, its impartiality and its considered approach when handling review applications.

Despite the lack of evidence that the tribunal's current standing rules have been abused by the public, the Albanese government is acting to totally abolish the current rights of ADF members, veterans and their families through this bill. They are taking away the right of Australians to register legitimate appeals against the refusal of a defence honour. What concerns me the most is, if the minister had a single ounce of decency, he would have undertaken a proper consultation process. He would have realised in about a minute that he had been sold a pup by the Department of Defence.

Defence initiated this legislation. Defence wrote the legislation. Defence has finally found a minister compliant enough to bring it to the chamber, and here we are today, debating a bill that should never have seen the light of day, particularly in the aftermath of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It is staggering that this government is taking action which actually disenfranchises serving men and women at this most sensitive of times. They're actually disenfranchising serving men and women and our veterans' community. This is worse than a solution looking for a problem; this legislation will actually create problems. It will add to the existing distrust between some veterans and Defence, and it actually undermines the integrity of a statutory agency which, I repeat, the Labor Party established in 2011.

On that point: for those who are not familiar with this particular tribunal, it was formed by the Gillard Labor government in 2011, with a capacity to review decisions regarding honours and awards. It can also be directed by the minister of the day to undertake inquiries on his or her behalf. As a statutory agency, it was intended to act independently of government. That is the critical point. It is meant to be independent of government, and it has the capacity to review decisions dating back to 1939, which obviously coincides with the start of World War II. Throughout the past 14 years, the tribunal undertook 483 reviews, and, on 283 occasions, it upheld the decision made by Defence. But, on 136 occasions, it put forward recommendations to change the decision of Defence. It seems to me like the tribunal is working.

Importantly, the tribunal's recommendations are a matter for the minister of the day to then consider. Deputy Speaker Young, I know you are someone who takes a great deal of interest in the recognition of our service men and women. There have been several particularly high-profile cases which have warranted careful consideration by the tribunal as reviewable decisions. Let's take the example of Teddy Sheean, the first naval servicemen to receive a VC, and, to quote from the citation regarding his actions in December 1942, it said:

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

An amazing, amazing Australian.

Then we have Private Richard Norden, whose gallant actions occurred in May 1968. Within his citation, it was said:

Private Norden killed one North Vietnamese Army soldier whilst moving forward and, having expended his ammunition, recovered that enemy's automatic weapon which he used against further North Vietnamese Army soldiers.

He then half-carried, half-dragged the severely wounded Section Commander back to the section.

Private Norden, seriously wounded, again advanced to the forward scout. He pressed forward under enemy fire and reached the scout, killing the North Vietnamese Army soldier who had been using the scout as a shield. Having determined that the scout was dead, Private Norden returned to the section to collect grenades and moved forward for a third time. He cleared the area to enable the body of the scout to be recovered.

Private Norden showed a complete disregard for his own personal safety, and his courage and selfless acts resulted in the enemy position being secured and likely saved the lives of other members of the platoon.

Again, another extraordinary Australian has been recognised for his actions.

Then there's the celebrated outcome for Delta Company after a long—when we're talking 'long', we're talking decades—battle for recognition by company commander Harry Smith, recognition that would not have been possible without the tribunal's involvement. On 18 August 1966, members of D Company, who were outnumbered 20 to one, fought against the odds to defeat the enemy at Long Tan. Eighteen Australians were killed, and more were wounded, but for half a century many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for that recognition. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the action that 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery.

The reason I raise those three cases as examples is that, under this legislation before the House today, those men never would have received the bravery medals they were rightfully due, because this government wants to place an unrealistic and unfair time limit on the review of honours and awards. The cases would not have been able to be assessed by the tribunal, because they occurred outside the 20-year time limit that this government is seeking to impose on Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families. In all of these cases, Defence opposed any changes to the medallic recognition of the individuals involved. Under the Albanese government's proposed changes that I've just described, none of these celebrated Australian servicepeople would have achieved the justice they deserved, as, again, their actions fall outside the 20-year time limit that would be imposed by this bill.

There's a fair bit of hypocrisy in this place, and this bill is right up there in it. In opposition, Labor were very happy to play politics with the Sheean case and they publicly demanded a VC for his heroic actions after the tribunal made its recommendations. The then opposition leader and now prime minister, Anthony Albanese, led the charge. So it's quite hypocritical of them when you consider the impact of the changes that his cabinet has put before the House today. Again, under these changes, the Labor Party would never have been able to deliver medallic recognition for Teddy Sheean and his family, because the tribunal would have been prevented from reviewing the decision made by Defence in the first place. We need to be very clear about this. The changes proposed today have been drafted by Defence. They are being driven by Defence, and the interests of veterans and the tribunal itself are secondary to those of this government, this minister and this prime minister.

If the House needs any proof that Defence never wants this tribunal correcting its homework, the approach of the former chief of the defence force Angus Campbell in relation to the Sheean VC case is compelling. It's been publicly reported that Campbell wrote to the Prime Minister advising against a VC for Sheean, despite the tribunal recommending the recognition. For the record, the former chief of the defence force also advised me that he didn't support Sheean receiving a VC. I had an outstanding working relationship with the former CDF and I respect him greatly, but we had to agree to disagree on this point. In relation to the tribunal, he briefed against Sheean receiving a VC, and I campaigned for it and I supported the tribunal's findings.

Defence just hates the fact that a tribunal exists to review its decisions. It hates the fact that actions from previous conflicts can be reassessed, and it hates the fact that any person may apply for a review. But now it's found a minister willing to just roll over and do its bidding at the expense of transparency and accountability. This deeply flawed legislation raises more questions than it answers—without proper consultation, there are just so many unanswered questions in relation to this bill. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal told a 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.

Specifically, I'd like to ask the Prime Minister: why is the government ignoring the advice of an independent statutory agency and taking the rights of appeal away from veterans and their families?

I'd also like to ask: can the Prime Minister confirm that Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean would never have received a Victoria Cross under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that Private Richard Norden would never have received a Victoria Cross under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago? Maybe the Prime Minister could also confirm that soldiers who fought in the Battle of Long Tan would never have received additional medallic recognition for their bravery under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago?

Maybe the minister or the Prime Minister could walk in here and answer this question: on whose advice did the government decide to ban the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago, and why wasn't the position tested with a full consultation process involving the affected parties? In the interests of transparency, prior to the election, why didn't the Prime Minister tell veterans and their families 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 honours and awards?

On 18 June 2020 the Prime Minister told the House that the point of having an independent defence honours and appeals tribunal was to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. Prime Minister, can you explain why this government is seeking to reduce the scope of this tribunal, this independent statutory body, and block veterans and their families from seeking review of Defence honours?

Finally, I have a question for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In relation to the plan to abolish the rights of veterans and families to seek an independent review of Defence decisions, can the minister confirm that he misled the chamber when he said, 'If the family themselves wish to have the matter reviewed, that should and will remain open to them'? That statement's not true. If the minister has misled the chamber, he needs to come in here and correct the record. It's not true, Deputy Speaker Young. The families can't seek a review under this legislation.

Minister, if you've misled the chamber, come back and correct the record. It could be an honest mistake. It could have been a drafting error in the speech. He could have misspoken. I don't know. From my reading of the legislation, it is abundantly clear that families have no right whatsoever to seek a review of an honour decision that is being denied by Defence.

I must confess, in many ways, I was pretty surprised—if not actually stunned—when the minister rose to make his second reading speech on this issue last week. We had no warning. We had no idea that he was heading down this pathway. There'd been no consultation with key agencies. So I say, again, in summing-up, this legislation is an example of a government that has run out of puff in just four months and is a solution looking for a problem.

There has been no consultation with veterans groups, and the bill proposes to amend the Defence Act to such a degree that the tribunal's operations would be, effectively, muzzled. The most egregious amendment is to strip the tribunal of the capacity to review decisions dating back to World War II, which obviously includes the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Korean War and the Malayan emergency—and every other operation in that time period.

Labor wants to limit the reviewable decision period to just 20 years and has provided no explanation whatsoever as to why that is a fair outcome. It also wants to strip ADF members, veterans and their families and everyday Australians of their right to seek a review of a Defence decision. Under these changes, make no mistake, veterans' advocates, historians and people with a specific interest in medallic recognition would have no right to seek a review of Defence decisions. I fear the minister has been somewhat hoodwinked by the defence department. The minister has swallowed the story that Defence is infallible and there's no need for the tribunal to have the capacity to review decisions dating back further than 20 years, because it's all a bit too hard. Well, I say it's too important. It's too important to have the capacity to consider past actions beyond 20 years. But we're simply rolling over for Defence because they don't like the tribunal and have never liked the tribunal, because it's sometimes hard to do the research and get the paperwork together.

I'm going to give one final practical example, which was the review undertaken by the tribunal into Warrant Officer Kevin Wheatley's actions in the Vietnam War in 1965, 60 years ago. It wouldn't be allowable to have that review under this legislation, but let's look at this case. In the Wheatley case, it was claimed there had been a lack of recognition for two separate actions by Wheatley in May and August of 1965. Keep in mind that Wheatley had been awarded a VC for actions later in the same year—actions which occurred in November. Defence tried to claim the VC was for cumulative actions in what was described as a uniquely imaginative approach to the issue. But, after exhaustive analysis, the tribunal found that Wheatley should also be posthumously awarded a medal for gallantry for his two other actions in the same year. This was a simple case of maladministration. There was no new evidence required. No additional witnesses were required. Under this legislation, this case would never have been reviewed by the tribunal. The tribunal found that the VC for Wheatley was a completely separate action and the other events in May and August 1965 warranted further recognition. Justice was done decades after the action occurred.

I'm not surprised that the speaking list for this bill is a little bit light on from the other side. I'd be embarrassed to come in here as well if I were a member of the Labor Party trying to justify this ridiculous legislation. On this side of the House, we understand the importance of the Australian Defence Force. We understand the need to ensure we can recruit some of the best and brightest young Australians to serve in our Navy, in our Army and in our Air Force. We want them to train well, to serve well, to transition well and also, where appropriate, to be suitably acknowledged for their service to our nation. The coalition supports the rights of men and women who serve in uniform and the generations of personnel who have gone before them. Medallic recognition of service, in particular for acts of gallantry and bravery, is an integral part of the Australian Defence Force.

Military officers are not infallible. Errors of judgement can be made in relation to recommendations for medallic recognition. The very establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in 2011 provided a statutory agency for an independent review of past actions and decisions. It has to remain independent. The Labor Party is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system and limit the rights of our veterans, our Australian Defence Force personnel, their families and other interested parties to question, through their own temerity, the merit of a past decision. This legislation should never have made it into the chamber. I'm assuming the Leader of Government Business ran out of legislation last week, contacted his colleagues and said, 'Has anyone got anything we could put in the House?' This should never have made it into the chamber. It's an example of a government which has run out of puff in just four months, and it is a solution looking for a problem. No wonder there were only eight weeks scheduled between the election and the end of the year. We have a part-time parliament, which is debating a bill like this, which no-one in the veterans community has even asked for.

On that final point about consultation and the lack of consultation, not even the RSL was asked for a review before the minister made his second reading speech last week. The largest ex-service organisation in the nation was completely blindsided when this bill was introduced last week. The hypocrisy of both the current prime minister and the defence minister—the Deputy Prime Minister, who strongly expressed views during the debate over Teddy Sheean that a posthumous VC should be awarded—has to be called out, because under these changes there would be no pathway to review past actions beyond 20 years, even if compelling new evidence was produced. Sadly, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has not presented any evidence that the tribunal has been overcome or deluged with referrals following the awarding of medals after the inquiry. It simply hasn't happened. That is despite the critics within the defence establishment often claiming it would open the floodgates whenever a successful review of a gallantry medal is awarded. They constantly claim there's going to be a flood of applicants for medals. It hasn't happened.

Defence has always been hostile to this tribunal and the retrospective nature of examining past actions and openly opposed Sheean receiving a VC, a VC which was cheered across the nation, cheered on that side of the House and cheered on this side of the House. It would have been impossible under the legislation before the House today because it would not have been a reviewable decision. While Defence claim its opposition stems from the view that military acts are best assessed at the time by the relevant officers, in this whole debate there's also likely to be an element of some senior officers simply resenting the prospect of having their judgement reviewed by a tribunal at a later date. They don't want an independent tribunal checking their homework.

At their heart, these changes are an effort by the government to remove independence from a statutory body which was, as I said, established in 2011 to consider all defence honours and awards matters. The government claims it is seeking to remedy issues but then gives no detailed explanation in relation to the extent of the alleged issues and which organisation has actually raised any concerns with the government. The minister has not made a coherent case for change, and he possibly misled parliament when he claimed that families could still seek a review. I'd like him to come to the chamber, if that's the case, and correct the record.

The coalition supports openness and transparency and believes these proposed changes should be tested in a Senate inquiry, not just inside the vested interests of the defence department. Veterans and historians should have the opportunity to make submissions and flesh out all of the relevant issues regarding the reviewable time limit of 20 years, a limitation which would prevent significant actions in the future being assessed by the tribunal. If the minister won't withdraw this legislation, he should at least have the decency to consult with impacted stakeholders and understand the consequences of this flawed approach. I commend the amendments, and I thank the House.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. The Australian honours and awards system recognises the outstanding service and contributions of Australians who have served in the Australian Defence Force. Recipients of awards are granted insignia as a visual expression of the honour conferred on them, and there are guidelines for the order in which awards are worn, noting that many defence personnel have been the recipients of multiple awards. Defence honours and awards recognise the exceptional service, sacrifice and achievements of members of the Australian Defence Force and of veterans and reflect the bravery, merit and dedication so many current and former service personnel have demonstrated. Gallantry, distinguished service, campaign participation and long service are all celebrated and acknowledged pursuant to Australia's honours and awards system.

The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is an independent statutory body established under the Defence Act 1903 to consider matters relating to defence honours and awards. Following a decision of the Department of Defence regarding a person's eligibility for a defence honour, defence award or foreign award, a person is able to apply to the tribunal for an independent review of that decision. General award and honour eligibility issues can also be referred to the tribunal by the government for inquiry and recommendation.

In short, the tribunal has two important functions. Firstly, there is the review function, whereby individuals are able to apply to the tribunal for review of a decision regarding eligibility for an honour, defence award or foreign award. Secondly, there is the inquiry function, whereby the government can refer issues to the tribunal for inquiry and recommendation. With respect to the first function, the review function, the past 14 years saw the tribunal review over 350 individual decisions relating to defence honours, defence awards and foreign awards. With respect to the second function, the inquiry function, the tribunal has assisted the government to explore 30 unresolved, complex issues through this process. There is no suggestion that, in exercising these functions, the tribunal has acted with anything other than integrity, honesty and fairness.

The review function involves the tribunal considering what is called a reviewable decision, as defined in the Defence Act. Decisions are reviewable if certain relevant conditions are satisfied, those being that the decision is or was a refusal to recommend a person or a group of persons for different award categories in relation to eligible service. Eligible service is service in the Defence Force or service under the control of or at the direction of the Defence Force or a member of the Defence Force. The different award categories are defence honour, defence award or foreign award. The tribunal has now been operating for well over a decade; that means it is important to review its operations to ensure that it does remain fit for purpose and to ensure that any issues or concerns about its operations are considered and addressed.

This Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 would operate to amend the arrangements that affect the first function of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, that being the review function, to address these concerns and to make the tribunal more fit for purpose. It is important to note that the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 makes no changes to the process that is used for the inquiry function. This process is detailed and considered, remains unchanged and is underpinned by a broad approach to consultation.

With respect to this function, if the government refers general eligibility issues relating to defence honours and awards to the tribunal for inquiry, terms of reference are established and they are published on the tribunal's website. Then the inquiry commences with a national call for submissions to address the terms of reference that have been established. Submissions might contain facts, opinions, arguments or recommendations. Public hearings are then convened, and some submitters—be they individuals or representatives from a group or an organisation—may be invited to give oral evidence to the tribunal to assist it in its deliberations.

There are no time limits for inquiries. The time that is required is dependent on a range of specific factors relevant to the inquiry, including the breadth of the terms of reference, the number of submissions received in response to those terms and the number of people called upon to give oral evidence to the tribunal to assist it with its independent deliberations. Typically, a minimum of 12 months is required for an inquiry to be finalised.

With respect to the review function, the scope of the current legislation is broad. It enables reviews of decisions for actions since 1939—85 years ago—and does not limit who can apply for a review. Understandably, given the passage of time since 1939, both the Department of Defence and the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal have identified issues with sourcing appropriate evidence that is relevant to a decision to confer an award when witnesses and many of the commanders and other participants of the day are no longer available to establish a definitive record of what took place.

On 3 July 2024, the Senate referred an inquiry into the defence honours and awards system to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, which tabled its report in June 2025. It produced six recommendations in relation to a range of issues, including a review of part VIIIC of the Defence Act 1903 to improve the tribunal's review functions but complement its continued operational independence.

To assist the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in their review function, this bill amends the jurisdiction of the tribunal as set out in the Defence Act in a number of productive ways. Firstly, the bill updates the time period for which the tribunal can review awards and honours recognition by limiting to those with a clear interest in such recognition those who are able to seek a review of Defence decisions regarding the conferral of awards and honours. This update is achieved by focusing the functions of such a review on eligibility.

The amendments also modernise the operations of the tribunal, including in relation to the time allowed to seek a review of a Defence decision, so that the operations are better aligned with other contemporary review bodies. At present, no time limits apply on when a review by the tribunal can be sought after a refusal decision has been made by Defence. This creates the uncertain situation where a review by the tribunal could be sought now for a decision to refuse a defence honour or award that was made sometime last century.

This bill creates a reasonable and practical six-month time limit to seek such a review. The six-month timeframe is significantly longer than the usual period for seeking a review of a government decision by a tribunal, but that is appropriate in this case, as the timeframe reflects the fact that there could be a range of reasons why a person might need more time to prepare for and seek such a review. The tribunal will also be able to accept applications for a review beyond this timeframe in exceptional circumstances—for example, if an applicant has a serious health condition.

So that progress, certainty and closure are achieved and to assure a more efficient and effective use of tribunal resources, the bill removes the ability for the tribunal to refer a decision regarding a defence award or foreign award back to the Department of Defence, although the tribunal retains the power to either affirm the original decision or set it aside and replace it with a new decision.

The bill also clarifies that a decision regarding a previously cancelled defence honour, defence award or foreign award is not reviewable by the tribunal. A cancellation decision is already not reviewable under the Defence Act; however, under the current framework, a subsequent application relating to a previous cancellation decision is considered a reviewable decision. The intent of this amendment is to correct this situation by ensuring that a decision regarding a previously cancelled defence honour, defence award or foreign award is not a reviewable decision. A cancellation decision in the first instance is given high levels of scrutiny, often relates to serious misconduct and is made by the Crown or the Crown representative. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for such decisions to be reviewable.

To formalise transparency, which underpins several of the six recommendations made by virtue of the referral by the Senate to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, this bill will also require the tribunal to prepare an annual report for tabling in parliament. The tribunal already voluntarily prepares an annual report, so this measure formalises the current practice.

A further significant amendment prescribed by this bill that is designed to focus the tribunal's efforts on reviewing and validating contemporary evidence, where living witnesses can contribute to the review process, is the provision that a refusal decision relating to a length-of-service award will be reviewable up until the member has or would have turned 100 years old. The effect of this is that refusal decisions relating to some conflicts, including World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and other more historic conflicts, will no longer be reviewable by the tribunal. Recommendations made to government about a defence honour will be refocused on eligibility for the honour, rather than the current system of making broader recommendations regarding honours and awards, which is properly the scope of the tribunal if an inquiry is being conducted—a process that is unchanged by this bill.

This bill will uphold the respect and integrity of the defence honours and awards system by removing the risks associated with making decisions in circumstances where it is impossible or at least incredibly difficult to refer to proper documentation or speak with decision-makers of the day. Evidence supporting eligibility is critical in promoting the integrity of the honours and awards system. Not only is contemporaneous evidence important in establishing a proper factual basis for making a decision, but reliance on and recourse to contemporaneous evidence builds trust and helps avoid bias, guesswork and conjecture. Verifiable and validated evidence backs up and supports the theory of the case being examined.

The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is unique to Australia. No other Commonwealth country has an independent review tribunal for their defence honours and awards decisions. Australia will continue to lead the way in ensuring this recognition is conducted in a transparent and fair manner which ensures public confidence in the system. Designed to promote the efficient and effective use of tribunal resources, with a focus on reviewing decisions about contemporary actions, the amendments proposed by this bill are reasonable and appropriate.

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

This is a speech to parliament from 18 June 2020 by Anthony Albanese, who is now the Prime Minister:

The point of having an independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. The tribunal unanimously supported Tasmanian hero Teddy Sheean getting a VC. But the Prime Minister tells us that we need a review of a review … On the merits, Teddy Sheean is worthy of a Victoria Cross.

The Prime Minister supports, when in opposition, the appeals tribunal and supports Teddy Sheean getting a VC. But, under the proposal of the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, it wouldn't have occurred. I also think it's quite noticeable that none of the veterans from the Labor Party who sit in parliament are in the chamber or speaking on this today. They know that this is wrong. There's been no consultation and no reach-out to veterans. The ESORT said that they don't recall or have any recollection of a conversation with the minister. No-one with medals of gallantry that I've spoken to has heard from the minister. This is not supported, this is a bad bill, and the coalition will oppose it.

I listened with great interest to the contributions of both the member for Sturt and the shadow minister for veterans' affairs. One of the things that I want to highlight is that senior officers in the ADF don't always get it right. Well, quite often they get it wrong. Former chief of defence force Angus Campbell rejected and campaigned against Teddy Sheean's getting the Victoria Cross. He was wrong. He was out of step. He was incorrect. The awards appeals tribunal also agreed that he was wrong. I've served in East Timor and in Afghanistan. I've never seen a senior officer on the two-way range. I've never seen them running and gunning before, yet, if this bill were to go through, we would look to them as the people of truth and the only arbiters of what happens with awards. Senior officers do not like to be told they're wrong. They get all upset. But, more often than not, they have been wrong in the past when it comes to recommendations for honours that have been reviewed and deemed fit for award by the appeals tribunal.

As to the 20-year mark at which an honour could no longer be recommended, we've heard a bit about the world wars and the Vietnam War, but, in four years time, the Iraq War, a modern-day conflict, will also be outside of the timeframe for a review into someone's service; a recommendation for an honour will be outside that timeframe. Now, there'll be some time, if this bill were to get up, for the Afghanistan War to reach that 20-year timeframe. On 19 October 2009, I was blown up by an improvised explosive device. A bomb threw me back. I was lying on my back, dust and flames in the air. Most people know that, if there's one IED, there'll probably be a second one. Without thinking of his own safety, without thinking of what could happen to him, Tom Howell, the medic on my patrol, ran through and jumped through the blast site, through the dust plume and flames, to come and treat me, to look after me. There were no senior officers on patrol; there was a bunch of enlisted soldiers out there fighting side by side with the Afghan national army. He had no regard for his safety and no regard for injuries that could have been inflicted upon him. I think Tom Howell should have been recommended for and awarded an honour—I really do. I'd hate it if, when these things get reviewed, when it's past the 20-year timeframe, he couldn't be considered like Teddy Sheean and others that have done fantastic, heroic, brave things in service of this nation. I do think that military officers are not the beacon of truth for everything.

And this Labor government is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system. A solution looking for a problem—that's what this bill is. You've not been asked to do it. It's not been requested by veterans or their families. You haven't been lobbied, apart from the Department of Defence, who just think this is too much work. You've not consulted the veteran community, yet you want to find a problem through creating some sort of solution. There is no evidence—no evidence at all—that the veteran community will accept or would like these proposed changes. And who knows better than the people that we're talking about—the veterans?

Defence has always been hostile to the tribunal and the retrospective nature of examining past actions, and it openly opposed Teddy Sheean receiving the Victoria Cross. So, on this bill, why on earth would we be taking their advice and not listening to veterans and their families? Defence claims its opposition stems from the view that military acts are best assessed at the time by relevant officers, and—this is ridiculous, this bill—there's also likely to be an element of senior officers resenting the prospect of having their judgement reviewed by the tribunal at a later date. Everything's always about the officer class when it comes to Defence, and that has been evident from the former CDF's tenure all the way through to now.

These changes are an effort by the government to remove independence from a statutory body which was established in 2011 to consider all defence honours and awards matters, and it was set up by a Labor government. The coalition supports openness and transparency and believes these proposed changes should be tested with a wider audience, not just inside the Department of Defence. This has not gone out to the veteran community. No-one I have spoken to has heard about, been told about or been briefed on this bill by any member of the government, let alone the minister in charge.

If you look at the actions of D Company in the Vietnam War, they would not have been reviewable under this bill's proposed changes. On 18 August 1966, members of Delta Company were outnumbered 20 to one and fought against the odds to defeat the Vietcong. Two hundred and forty-five Vietcong were killed in the rubber plantation, and 18 Australians were killed, with more wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for recognition. Company commander Harry Smith long fought for recognition for Long Tan's frontline soldiers. He said a 30-year secrecy period and bureaucratic red tape stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases on behalf of Mr Smith that 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery. Under this legislation, they never would have received the medals they were rightly due.

I can't understand why this government is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It screams of there having been no thought for those that have served on operations and what this would mean to them. I spoke to a friend of mine who's got a Medal for Gallantry—there aren't that many people that have a Medal for Gallantry; I'm sure the minister or any member of the government could have picked up the phone and called him—and I told him about this. He laughed down the phone and said 'nice joke'. I said: 'I'm not joking. It's a serious bill before the parliament.' He couldn't understand why this would be occurring—why the Department of Defence would be out to lead the charge in making such changes without going to the community that it represents, without going out to the people that have been awarded these medals, without going to the families and without speaking to those that live this every day. The RSL doesn't know about it. No ex-service organisations know about it. ESORT has no idea about it.

I don't think this is a good bill, and that is evidenced by Labor having only one speaker on this and having none of their veterans in the parliament for this debate. I do think of the hypocrisy from this Prime Minister. When in opposition, he stood at this despatch box saying why there is a need for this—why we need to have the tribunal and why Teddy Sheean should be awarded the VC. Now he turns around and implements a bill that would have seen him not be awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery. It just shows that, when in opposition, the Prime Minister will say anything. When in government he'll change his mind. He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth, and we've seen that through his time as Prime Minister as well.

I honestly believe this has been a complete misstep and a rushed bill. Having no consultation demonstrates that. The minister should be in here listening and answering questions that I'm sure he'll read with great joy, with the shadow minister for veterans' affairs asking away about us not having had any briefing on this. I haven't had any briefing on this. I do think that this should be widely consulted, not rushed through. I just would like to finish up by saying that, as a veteran—as someone who has been on operations, been wounded in combat, seen bravery, seen people who have done the most remarkable things that a human can do—those who have come before us through the world wars and Vietnam and Somalia would still be lobbying today for honours and awards. They would be reading this bill going, 'Well, this is all just going to be put in the bin.'

Lobby groups who have been out lobbying to get Delta Company the recognition they deserve wouldn't have happened with this bill. You're putting a lid on the bravery that is still before the tribunal or still to be raised, and I think it's not appropriate. In four years time Iraq will have a lid on it as well, and no-one will be able to put forward any brave actions that have occurred. I think about what will happen when people start wanting to talk about the bravery they saw in Afghanistan, because it takes time. People think that once you've seen heroic things, been wounded, been in a gunfight or anything like that, you close your eyes, click your heels together, and everyone just rocks up with medals. We go through a process. It took me several years to even talk about defence again. It took me several years to pull myself out of a dark hole, and we're saying now that we've got a timeframe to rush people to quickly get everyone around a table and go, 'These are the brave actions that happened; please award these people.' It takes time. I don't want to see people left behind by a bad bill that hasn't been widely consulted on. I will be opposing this.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the member for Herbert's service to this country, as well as the service of the member for Canning and the member for Solomon. I'm probably forgetting others, but, if you served in uniform for this country, then on Australia's national flag day I salute you. The country thanks you for your service. It was more than 103,000 Australians. Picture the size of the crowd in the MCG on an AFL grand final day. That and a little bit more is the number of Australians who pulled on the uniform and were killed in the ultimate sacrifice for the generations that followed. That is a sacrifice that Australians can never repay, and it's a sacrifice that I often talk about to school children. I note the school kids that have just sat down in the gallery upstairs.

We talk about how this parliament was designed in such a way that, if you opened up all the doors between the cabinet room and each door that proceeds to the front of Parliament House, you can look down the colonnade to see the Australian War Memorial. It's the decisions that are made in this House that send our men and women into conflict. As we just heard from the member for Herbert, who served his country in Afghanistan and was wounded very severely, the pains and the scars of that conflict remain with him and many of his colleagues. We in this place and we Australians who have never served should always remember and thank them for their service.

So, when it comes to bills like these, I shake my head in disbelief that this government would bring such a bill as this that will strip the rights of our service men and women to be able to effectively review decisions of Defence around honours and awards. It doesn't strip them entirely. I accept that. But what it does is neuter the ability of the tribunal in the timeframes that applications for reviews have to be made and of those who can bring them. It is absolutely a solution in search of a problem.

I had a retired lieutenant colonel contact me on Sunday about this bill. Graeme Mickelberg, who is a constituent of mine, often rings me about veterans' affairs matters. He had a very long and distinguished service career in the Australian Army, and he was very exercised by this bill. He, along with a number of other veterans that I have spoken to, cannot understand the rationale of this government in bringing forward this bill. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal was established in 2011, and it was supposed to be and has been an independent body. But some genius or geniuses in the Department of Defence have decided that they no longer like—they have probably never liked—their decisions being reviewed by the tribunal, so, effectively, want to gut the jurisdiction, the ability and the powers of this tribunal to be able to make decisions.

I get that many Australians might be thinking: 'This doesn't impact on me. Why should I bother about this?' Just remember those 103,000 Australians. One of those 103,000 Australians might have been your granddad, your uncle, your mum or your sister who have served in uniform. They may have either paid the ultimate sacrifice or been in the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have served in the ADF that have been willing to make that ultimate sacrifice for us—for you.

As the member for Herbert pointed out, it is unbelievably telling that there is a dearth of members of the government who are willing to speak to this bill. Quite frankly, I am surprised at this government's willingness to continue to proceed with this bill, given that they know—they must have known—the guttural response that this bill would receive from our veteran community. They must have known that veterans often get adverse decisions about these honours and awards from Defence, and they must have known that the ability to seek an independent review—a review independent of government—from an independent tribunal would be held sacrosanct by these veterans and their families. That the government would be introducing this bill today leaves me flabbergasted.

Military officers are not infallible. None of us are infallible. Errors of judgement are made, particularly on the battlefield, and errors of judgement are absolutely made by departmental officers. The Labor Party is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system and limit the rights of veterans and other interested parties to question the merit of past decisions. It absolutely shows a complete lack of respect for our veterans and their rights to recognition.

The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, as I said, is independent. It was established in 2011 under the Defence Act. It's designed to consider Defence honours and award matters. The tribunal has both a review and an inquiry function. In its review function, the tribunal can conduct a merits review of a decision of Defence that is a refusal to recommend a person for a Defence honour, such as a gallantry or distinguished service decoration; a defence award, such as a medal granted for service in a campaign or to recognise long service; or a foreign award. Through this review function, the tribunal allows Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families to obtain timely, independent and thorough reviews of those decisions.

In its inquiry function, at the direction of the minister, the tribunal can inquire into matters relating to Defence honours and awards and provide a report and recommendations to government. The legislation currently under debate shuts the door on any further review of actions in the Vietnam War. By 2029, it will shut the door on ADF members that served in Iraq.

As an idea of the impact that this bill would have on review possibilities, as the member for Herbert pointed out, D Company actions during the Vietnam War at Long Tan would not have been reviewable. On 18 August 1966, members of D company were outnumbered 20 to one and fought against the odds to defeat the Viet Cong. About 245 Viet Cong were killed in the rubber plantation; 18 Australians were killed, and more were wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for recognition. Company Commander Harry Smith long fought for recognition for Long Tan's frontline soldiers. He said a 30-year secrecy period and bureaucratic red tape stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases, on behalf of Harry Smith, that these 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery. Under this legislation, they would never have received the medals that they were rightly due. Under this legislation, Teddy Sheean, that young sailor, would never have received his Victoria Cross.

I seem to recall the Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, standing up here and thumping the dispatch box, particularly, around Teddy Sheean and how he had been consistently knocked back for a Victoria Cross. Yet the legislation that his government wants to introduce would disempower the very awarding of a Victoria Cross to people like Teddy Sheean.

Defence and senior members of the ADF have consistently pushed back against retrospective awarding of these sorts of gallantry awards, like the Victoria Cross. I remember being part of a voice or voices which, when we were in government, led to the appointment of Brendan Nelson, the former director of the War Memorial, in conducting an inquiry, in relation to another inquiry, in relation to Teddy Sheean. In short, this is just another step by the Albanese government to stifle dissenting opinions, to stop review and to stop transparency of their decisions.

We saw this yesterday, in relation to the introduction of the new FOI laws. Families of veterans will not have a right to seek a review for an honour under this legislation. Let me say that again: families of veterans will not have a right to seek a review for an honour under this legislation. Veterans, family members, advocates and historians should have the ability to seek review under the tribunal—as, we all know, in this place, sometimes a veteran or their family are not able to take carriage of their matter through such a process.

That's why we have an advocacy system through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. But that shouldn't stop them from seeking the medallic recognition they could be entitled to. This legislation was written by the department whose decisions the tribunal was set up to review. The opposition was briefed by Defence, with no tribunal staff or members present to defend their position in opposing these changes. Would anyone in this parliament think it appropriate for Defence to decide how the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force operates?

I urge the government to reconsider their position on the bill. At the very least, this bill must be reviewed and those impacted must be consulted.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 raises a number of questions around the priorities of this government. When I think about the priorities of a government that's just been returned to office, at a time when Australians are feeling the most incredible degree of financial stress—when households are struggling to pay their mortgages and electricity bills or even goods at the supermarket, a simple basket of food—I would hope that the priority of the Australian government was on how to ease the cost of burden, the pressure, and alleviate whatever pressure there may be on households at this difficult time.

I would hope that in an environment of global instability we had a government that was focused on reassuring and strengthening our nation so that it can lean into the challenges of the 21st century. When I think about what artificial intelligence could do to our employment market and to jobs creation and growth, I would hope that the focus of the government was on skills and economic developments, to reassure Australians that we have a way forward to meet the future with confidence. I would hope that, at a time like this, we had leadership that was focused on building the strength of our nation—more importantly, that, when we have a government that has been given a gift of a majority, 94 seats, by the Australian people, it would be focused on steering the good ship Australia towards a brighter future.

But, at the moment, we have a very different type of government embodied by this legislation. Gifted by the Australian people with this enormous privilege, its priorities at the moment are how it can strip accountability and scrutiny from its decision-making. It's not just about how they're stripping accountability from their decision-making but how they are also shutting a curtain of censorship over the departments and the decision-making of government, to impose a culture of secrecy on Canberra.

I can say one thing for certain. Nobody walked into the ballot box at the general election this year and voted for that. Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I'm going to go and vote for a re-elected Albanese government because they are going to be the most secretive government in Australian political history.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to impose a veil of secrecy.' Nobody, no Australian, walked into the ballot box and said, 'I'm going to vote for the Albanese government because they're going to increase the cost of and diminish access to information.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'We are going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to redact more information available to the Australian people.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to limit my capacity to scrutinise government decision-making.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they're going to reduce the number of staff for members of the opposition so they are less able to hold the government to account in this parliament.' And I am sure, as day follows night, that nobody walked into the ballot box and voted for the Albanese government, saying, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government so they can strip away a pathway for review of decision-making around honouring our deceased war veterans.'

For the government to make this one of their first, premier pieces of legislation says something brutal and, frankly, quite terrifying about their priorities as a government. While we have former state Labor premiers marching down the red carpets in Beijing right now and celebrating past military conflicts, we seem completely unwilling to fully honour and have pathways for review to honour the legacy of our own. There is something deeply worrying about the priorities of the Albanese government. The coalition proudly supports all men and women who have served in uniform and, in some cases, have had to, tragically, make the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our nation. We ultimately believe that anybody who has been prepared to make a sacrifice, to stand up and fight for our country, should have their courage and their bravery acknowledged and respected not just through the history and the stories of our nation but through medals, as is appropriate for their valiant service.

The tribunal exists to make sure that there is proper and fair review of the decisions of the defence department to make sure there is proper recognition, because in the tragedy of the fog of war, of course, decisions are sometimes made based on information that is incorrect. We simply believe that information should be able to come to light so decision-making is fair and fully respects what actually happened on the ground. We know, sometimes, through court cases and other information provided, that what first appears to have happened can, in fact, be wrong. That's why we have reviews. That's why we have a pathway to make sure that new information can be provided.

This government wants to shut that process down, and I simply cannot fathom how this is its priority right now in comparison to the enormity of other problems—not just the problems that the Australian people face but, frankly, the bigger problems that the Australian Defence Force is facing around its capacity and its position to meet the challenges of the 21st century, which is our most strategic operating environment since the Second World War according to the Australian government's own white paper.

The establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in 2011 provided a statutory agency for independent review of past actions and decisions. We know that military officers are not infallible and that errors of judgement can be made in relation to recommendations for medallic recognition. By simply interfering in this process, we are removing a pathway for revision of the merits of past decisions. It's a simple expectation that there be transparency and that those decisions be reviewed if new information comes to light. We know that in the past they have been, and correctly so.

The government is seeking a remedy but has given no justification or evidence of why this is the case beyond the department not wanting to go through the laborious task of wanting to honour our former defence personnel and give them full recognition. Frankly, I understand that it's bureaucratically problematic for the department, but, when we're talking about the legacy of honouring those who are prepared to sacrifice for our nation, I think you can put up with it at your desks. There is a simple expectation from all Australians, I would hope, to properly honour our ex-service men and women, and that is what we, on the opposition benches, expect. But, clearly, the department have found a compliant government that is prepared to trade off that full recognition, because it is going to introduce a 20-year limit for the tribunal to review past decisions. It should, justifiably, be opposed.

In discussing the impact of several of Defence's proposals, the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal said the original proposal would have 'rendered invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by the tribunal between 2020 and 2023.'

The tribunal also said:

… the Defence proposals, if implemented, 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.

I simply cannot understand how this can be a priority of this government at this time. They have made their decision, and they are introducing this bill to this parliament. It is, of course, going through the House of Representatives right now, but it will go through a proper review in the Senate.

The question, in the end, is how can members of this government come into this parliament and stand by this legislation. I see the minister at the desk. We, of course, don't see many members of the government standing up and supporting this legislation by speaking in favour of it. To be fair, I can understand why. I wouldn't want to be attached to it either, if I were on the other side of this chamber. I think they would be mocked and ridiculed by the RSLs and many of the Defence personnel in their electorates for standing up and saying: 'This is my priority in the federal parliament right now. While I was sent to Canberra because people in the community had genuine concerns about their future, wanting security and confidence about their capacity to live their best lives, my priority is to seek to diminish the rightful recognition of Defence personnel.' I suspect most people, in their electorates, would turn around and say, 'You have very strange priorities indeed.'

I've no doubt this will pass through the House of Representatives with the support of those on the other side of this chamber, with their gargantuan majority and distorted priorities. My path forward is to write to the presidents of all the local RSLs in the Goldstein electorate—Thomas Concaig from Hampton RSL, James Steedman from Caulfield RSL, Jordie Burgess from Highett RSL, Simon Richards from Cheltenham Moorabbin RSL and Bentleigh RSL—and to Mark Schroffel, who is now the state president of RSL Victoria. I'll, of course, seek their input and opinion and encourage them to write submissions to the review, or to any inquiry that comes out of the Senate process, to make sure that their views are heard. Of course, I encourage any member of our veterans community, and of the entire Australian community, to write to the Senate inquiry to have their views heard and ask if it is appropriate that the government is engaging in a pathway to limit the review of decision-making and the full recognition of the past service of former defence personnel. I doubt there are going to be many Australians who turn around and say the best thing for those wearing our uniform is to diminish or delete the pathways for recognition of their service. Maybe there are, but I doubt it. That just seems to be the priority of the Albanese government. I suspect most Australians would believe that it was better there was full recognition and, if necessary, a pathway of review and, in addition to that, would say to the government, 'Don't you have slightly better priorities than this?' The answer is clearly no.

In addition to that, I would encourage every member of the Australian community to not just look at this legislation and reflect on it in isolation in what it says about the Albanese government in the context of the ADF, but to look at it in terms of the priorities of the Albanese government in the context of their broader legislative government agenda. Look at the fact that they're shutting down the pathways for Australians to review the decisions of full recognition of our ADF personnel, then look at what they're doing around shutting down transparency of decision-making in Australian government decisions, around redacting documents and trying to keep secret information about government decision-making, around imposing a new truth tax to limit access to information to the Australian people and around denying staff to members of parliament to diminish the capacity for scrutiny of government.

The extent to which you have ministers and the Prime Minister come into this chamber who increasingly won't answer questions or say, 'I refer to my previous answer,' which included not answering questions—we increasingly see decision-making by members of this government which is only to the benefit of 'cartel-ish' behaviour towards the benefit of those who donate to the Labor Party or to boost the benefits and the graft of the Labor Party. You realise that the priority of this government is not the Australian people. It is not to respect the Australian people and it is not to recognise how we use this parliament to advance the Australian people, but it is simply to achieve its own ends. I say that with absolute sadness because, if anything, we come into this parliament, hopefully, with an esprit de corps that the objective of being elected to the federal parliament is to advance Australia and to ultimately 'Advance Australia Fair' for all.

When you see a piece of legislation like this and like the one that is being flagged by the Attorney-General to shut down scrutiny of government and the behaviour of the government in the context of question time and the decisions of the Prime Minister—we're now seeing a pattern of behaviour which says that the 94 seats that this government has got in the House of Representatives suggests that a hubris and an arrogance is now distorting not just their behaviour but their priorities. It's unfortunately focused on themselves rather than the Australian people, and we need to call it out because the consequences and the on flow to the Australian people will be significant. Now is the time for good people to stand up and call it out.

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

If there is one piece of legislation which says everything about this Labor government, it is this one.

You can laugh all you like, Minister. You can mock this, but I am, frankly, galled by what we are debating today. I've got respect for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—I do. The minister, the shadow minister at the table and myself have all been ministers for veterans' affairs. It's a tough role. You have to have respect. You have to have a listening ear. You have to pay homage—you must—to the service and sacrifice of those who have proudly worn the uniform of Australia, the uniform of freedom. No-one knows this more than those who have bled for this country—those people who have chosen to protect and serve; those brave men and women who have shown such pluck and courage; those who have gone through the gates of the home of the soldier, Blamey Barracks, 1st Recruit Training Battalion, in Kapooka, near Wagga Wagga; those who have served our Navy and potentially gone and served it at Forest Hill, Wagga Wagga; or those who have served where air power starts, at RAAF Base Wagga. I'm very proud of each and every one of them.

The minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, on 11 November—Remembrance Day and Armistice Day—last year said this:

Private Norden personified the ANZAC spirit—disregarding his own safety to put his mates first.

I want to acknowledge and thank the veteran community for your advocacy for the appropriate recognition of Private Norden.

I'm so glad that especially today we can acknowledge Private Norden's gallant actions with the Victoria Cross for Australia.

What has changed, Minister? What is different now that wasn't the case back then?

The minister, when he said those words, when he uttered those phrases, was absolutely correct. Private Norden from Gundagai absolutely deserved a Victoria Cross for Australia, just as Teddy Sheean deserved a similar honour. And then we have Frank Alcorta OAM, the late Barry Eugene Magnussen, Colonel Francis Adrian Roberts OAM, Neil Raymond Bextrum, the late Ronald Howard Brett, Ian Martin Campbell, Noel John Grimes, Geoffrey Michael Peters, William Alfred Roche and the late Second Lieutenant Gordon Cameron Sharp—10 Australian soldiers, heroes all, who were recognised for their bravery more than 50 years after they fought in the Vietnam War's Battle of Long Tan. Those 10 men and Teddy Sheean VC and Richard Norden VC would not have received the recognition, that medallic tribute, had it not been for an appeals process—a process put in place to look at decisions made or the fact that they were overlooked at the time of their gallantry—which in more recent times has given them their due honours. No-one was prouder of the fact that those brave dozen received their awards than their own families.

Why are we debating the process for future Victoria Cross for Australia recipients—they'll be nonrecipients now. Why are we debating this? Why are we meddling in medalling? It just does not make sense. I would appeal to the minister's good heart—and I know he has a good heart; I know he does. I think he should withdraw what the government is proposing. There would be no shame, Minister, in doing just that. There would be no criticism from the RSLs, from veterans, from families or from those who are still alive who feel as though they have been let down by the system. They would say that the minister went to the parliament, had a piece of legislation and changed his mind. You can be wrong, you know. It's okay to change your mind for the good, in the national interest. It's alright to say, 'I got it wrong.' It's not alright to push on regardless.

I'm pleased the minister is in the chamber. I note that we have the absence of Labor speakers on this particular bill. We had the member for Sturt, a new member. And I grant that she had the talking points from the government to push the point. I note we don't have any of the crossbench. We all know what they're like when it comes to whistleblowing and when it comes to veterans matters per se, the teals dripping in pious pontification and sanctimony. And that's what they are. Where are they when it comes to sticking up for what's right? No doubt they're listening to what I'm saying. If you are and you're on your monitors, get down into the chamber and stick up for your RSLs. Get down to the chamber and stick up for your veterans, just for once! This is important.

It might not seem that vital or that critical, because we have a cost-of-living crisis and we've got lots of debates in this place which, granted, are probably considered far more important, but you've got Teddy Sheean and Richard Norden getting posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross because we had a process in place that went beyond 20 years. You've got those other 10 who put their lives on the line at Long Tan in the jungles against overwhelming odds, outnumbered. They didn't think that they were doing what they were about to do because they might get a piece of tin on their chest to march down the street on Anzac Day on April 25. They didn't give that a moment's thought, but they did what they did for their mates. They did what they did for the loyalty and the service and the dedication and the application that they were taught when they put on that khaki.

That's what our soldiers do. That's what those who proudly wear the white or the blue of the Navy and the RAAF do. And we owe them the respect and the honour to make sure that, if they go above and beyond—and every one of them does—and they had that particular piece of valour, that gallantry, that moment where they go above and beyond and it's overlooked, it's forgotten, it's neglected by the process or we have some military tribunal that doesn't see fit to award them at the time, then there should at least be a pathway down the track for recognition. We owe them that much. They place their lives on the line so that we could have a fair and free democratic society.

And it's no coincidence that, if you go from the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier and walk a direct line, you will go past the Menin Gate lions, through the front door of the Australian War Memorial, that shrine of remembrance brought to us by Bean, that great Australian, and you walk a direct line straight through the front doors of this place, the house of the federal parliament, through the cabinet room and straight to the front door of the Prime Minister's office. It was done deliberately that way so that we would never ever forget that we owe the free and fair democratic society and the parliament to that place, that shrine put in place by Charles Bean, who thought it up on the battlefields of World War I, so that we could remember.

And what are we doing today in the House of Representatives? We're spurning them. We're shunning them. We're telling them that if it wasn't within 20 years then we don't care. It's not right. And, yes, I am upset. I am really upset. But the emotion I'm showing is nothing compared to the emotion our RSL clubs will be showing. I'm not a veteran. Those veterans who gave so much for our country deserve better. They truly do.

I cannot understand, I cannot fathom or contemplate, why the minister thought this was a good thing. Minister, it is not too late. I cannot understand, if this went through a cabinet process, why those important people around that important table thought that this was a good idea. Why are we doing this? Why are we tarnishing the memories of those veterans who could, potentially and deservedly, receive recognition for their efforts? They didn't go out into the battlefields, the jungles, the deserts, the air or the sea to achieve greatness for themselves. They did it for their mates. They did it for their comrades. They did it for their country. They did it for freedom. They did it for the flag. And today is National Flag Day. They fought under the flag.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One flag.

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

One flag, true. But they're being told that unless it's within the last two decades it's not worthy of consideration or reconsideration. Yes, there will be bureaucracy involved. Yes, Defence doesn't always like to be told that it might have got it wrong, that their decisions might have to be reviewed, that perhaps there was somebody who didn't get a medallic honour and some new evidence comes to light. That's an important part of the process. But when you sit at one of those investitures, when you see the emotion in the eyes of the families who have lost loved ones, as in Richard Norden, as in Robynn Freeman, the widow of the brave Victoria Cross recipient—and you know what it means to her. You know what it means to her sons. You know what it means to the community of Gundagai, to Abb McAlister, the mayor, to Helen Castles, the journalist at the Gundagai Independent, to Paul Vercoe, who has worked so hard to get a statue—and I do acknowledge the minister and the Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants Program for the $150,000.

If this legislation passes, if the minister doesn't have the good heart to say, 'We won't worry about it,' I do wonder about whether we should have the people who voted in favour of this making the winding track to Gundagai, on the road to Gundagai, next May, when we unveil that statue. They will have voted for a piece of legislation that will stop the future Richard Nordens from getting recognised, and that's not right. This is a folly.

This piece of legislation is not right. It's not right for those who have received medallic honours in the past through a process. It's not right for those who should have in the future. It's just wrong. Lest we forget.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. It goes to something very fundamental to our nation, to our Defence Force defending our country, which is how we recognise the men and women who wear our uniform and how we correct the mistakes when recognition has been denied.

The coalition's starting point on this important issue is very simple. People are the foundation of national security. If we can't properly attract, retain, motivate and honour the men and women who serve our great country, we cannot defend our great country. Medallic recognition is not symbolism. It is a demonstration of how a grateful nation says clearly and publicly: 'We saw what you did. It mattered, and we will never forget.'

We are seeing the most dangerous strategic environment that our part of the world, and perhaps the world more generally, has seen since the Second World War. It is a volatile world where authoritarian regimes around the globe are flexing their muscles. Indeed, we see that displayed on our TV sets right now, as we speak. We see on our TVs cruise missiles that can reach Australia. We're seeing a celebration of the greatest military build-up in history by the Chinese Communist Party. It is unprecedented. And, can I say, it is beyond comprehension that two senior Labor figures Bob Carr and Daniel Andrews should participate in the celebration of that military build-up. That's exactly what they are doing as we speak here today.

It is also beyond belief that the Prime Minister fails to discourage that kind of behaviour. These authoritarian regimes, whether they are in Russia, North Korea or Iran or whether it is the Chinese Communist Party, do not share our values. Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are not our friends. In the case of Putin, he is the autocratic leader who is currently fighting an illegal war against the free people of the Ukraine. We ask that the Prime Minister state clearly that it is unacceptable for our senior Labor figures to be part of that celebration.

Returning to the matter at hand, we do meet in the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. That's why the great people of our Defence Force need the recognition that they deserve. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal was created as an independent statutory safeguard. It's a practical mechanism to correct errors and recognise gallantry and service when the original process has fallen short. It exists precisely because military officers, like all of us, are not infallible, and because the passage of time can always bring forward important new evidence. It's a backstop that protects integrity.

Of course this bill would substantially curtail that independence and close the door to many who seek review. It imposes a 20-year time limit on applications. That would, importantly, abolish rights of review for service in the Second World War, Vietnam, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor, Iraq and the earlier years of Afghanistan. Those are exactly the cohorts for whom new materials often emerge. The tribunal itself has warned that such a limit would invalidate the overwhelming majority of the reviews it has conducted in recent years. In practice, this is not a tidy up; it's a shutdown. The bill also restricts who may apply, limiting certain honour applications to senior commanders or eye witnesses. The bill has been driven by the department whose decisions are reviewed by the tribunal. Well, it is true that departments often don't like being questioned. But it is the right thing, when new evidence emerges, to question a department or a decision that has been made, and that should continue.

Finally, there's been a striking lack of genuine consultation with the ex-service community. We've just heard from my good friend the member for Riverina, who has made the point that our RSLs and subbranches across this country are outraged at what they are seeing here. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is no evidence of a flood of frivolous claims overwhelming the system. In fact, the balance between those that have been accepted and those that have been rejected is a very reasonable one. When the tribunal has recommended upgrades, it's usually done so on the basis of rigorous evidence, not sentiment, and only after Defence's review has been fully tested. That's what an independent merits review means.

History shows why independence matters on these things. It took persistence, new evidence and, ultimately, an independent tribunal process for some of our most deserving cases to be recognised. Medals don't win wars, but they help to build the culture that does. This is incredibly important. The pride I see in our ex-servicemen and servicewomen, and in our serving men and women, whether it's on Anzac Day or at other times—we've seen it in recent weeks with the ADF's commemoration of the end of the Pacific War or, indeed, Vietnam Veterans Day. I see our veterans wearing their medals with enormous pride. I see their kids doing exactly the same—obviously wearing them in a different way. This is recognition that really matters. It goes directly to morale, to retention and attraction, and to motivation, which are all the things we need if we're going to have an effective Defence Force. From my point of view, this is one of four key imperatives for our Defence Force, alongside preparedness, agility and sovereignty. We need to have the very best people serving our nation in our Defence Force.

The opposition supports veterans' rights and the integrity of Australian honours and rewards. We will not support measures that curtail an independent merits review, impose retrospective time bars, extinguish rights or confine applications to those least likely or least able to bring them forward. To be constructive, we'll move amendments that remove the proposed 20-year limit; that maintain broad standing so that veterans, families, advocates and historians can apply—guarding against conflicts of interest and ensuring that meritorious cases are not blocked at the gate—and that require Defence to provide clear written notice of tribunal review rights whenever a decision is made to refuse, downgrade or not recommend an honour or award. These are commonsense safeguards.

As the member for Riverina said—and I pay tribute to the fact that the minister is here today in the chamber—this is an issue on which I know this side of the parliament feels very strongly. We are happy to work with the minister to set it right. We also need to be clear about what all this means in practice. If unamended, the legislation shuts the door on any further reviews, as I said earlier, of actions in the Vietnam War. We heard, from the member for Riverina a moment ago, just what that would mean. D Company actions would not have been reviewable under this bill. On 18 August 1966, members of D Company, outnumbered 20 to one, fought against extraordinary odds to defeat the Viet Cong. Any who have had a chance to see that extraordinary movie, Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan, will have seen just what those extraordinary people went through. A total of 245 VC were killed in the rubber plantation, and 18 Australians were killed and many more wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for recognition.

Company Commander Harry Smith long fought for recognition for Long Tan's frontline soldiers. He said a 30-year secrecy period and bureaucratic red-tape process stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases on behalf of Mr Smith that these 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery, as they should have been. Under this legislation, they would never have received the medals they were rightfully due. That would not have happened.

Exactly the same happened with Teddy Sheean, of course. At the time Teddy Sheean received a VC, the Prime Minister authored an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph urging that Sheean's immense bravery ought to have been recognised without hesitation. I quote from that:

If ever there is an image that captures the definition of courage as grace under pressure, surely … there was a deed worthy of the highest military honour …

…   …   …

Teddy Sheean deserves the Victoria Cross.

On 18 June 2020, he also said in a speech in the parliament:

The point of having an independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit.

The tribunal unanimously supported Tasmanian hero Teddy Sheean's getting a VC. That fact based process, which can be trusted, is absolutely essential to the trust that our serving men and women and veterans need to have in being part of our Defence Force.

There is a better path here, one that balances care for veterans with stewardship of the system. Of course, all of this is about making sure we have a Defence Force that can secure peace through strength, and that strength requires motivated, great people continuing to want to sign up and serve our great nation. Our message is clear. Respect our veterans, keep the tribunal independent and fix processes that need fixing, but do not extinguish rights that correct injustice. In the toughest strategic era in generations, let us send a signal to every serving member and every veteran: the parliament has your back not just in what we say but in the systems we build and defend. That is how we will move from rhetoric to readiness, put people first and earn the trust that national security demands.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whenever we have new piece of legislation come to us that we need to review and scrutinise, the first question I always ask myself—the first question any minister or any parliamentarian should ask themselves—is a very basic one, but it's a very important question. That question is: what is the problem we are trying to solve? Every piece of legislation that we bring to this House should be solving a problem for the Australian people. It is disappointing that I have to stand and give this speech today on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, because, despite looking at this in great detail and listening to the minister's speech, I cannot see a problem that we need to solve. I'm very lucky in Casey to have many strong RSLs and strong veterans that advocate on a lot of issues. They are very determined to make sure I know where they stand. I've not had one veteran come and raise this concern with me. I know none of our veterans were consulted. Many haven't raised it because they're not aware this legislation is happening, which I'll get to. But there is no problem here that needs to be solved. We are creating a challenge. We are sending a terrible message to our veterans with the introduction of this legislation to make it harder for those veterans to be recognised and for family members of veterans to have their service recognised.

Just recently I had the opportunity to speak at Vietnam Veterans' Day in my community. This is how important recognition is to our veterans. In the previous term of parliament, I was able to help a veteran receive recognition that they deserved. That veteran came up to me at that service—he's a Vietnam veteran—gave me a hug and said thank you. He had tears in his eyes; he was overcome with emotion that our nation had recognised his service. Our nation had said to him, 'The sacrifice that you made, both physically and mentally, for our country, to keep us safe, matters.' He was so overwhelmed with emotion. Some might think it's a small thing, but it's a huge thing. So why this government would deem it necessary or advantageous to make it harder for our veterans and their families to get the recognition that they deserve is something that I cannot comprehend.

We should always remember as parliamentarians that we ask our veterans, we ask our serving personnel, to pay a significant cost to ensure that we have the freedoms today and into the future. We ask them to pay a physical cost. We ask them to pay a mental health cost. We ask them to sacrifice time with their families, time with their loved ones and time with their communities. They willingly do that. They willingly make the sacrifice to keep us safe. One of the things they would like in return is recognition from this nation for their service.

Let's be very clear. This legislation, if passed, makes it harder for our veterans and the families of veterans that gave so much to receive recognition for their service. Why any government would want to put forward legislation that makes that harder is incomprehensible. It is disappointing that, today of all days, as we celebrate National Flag Day, this government want to debate and pass this legislation. National Flag Day is a day in which we are meant to celebrate the things that make us proud to be Australian, a day to celebrate the foundations of modern Australia, of our freedom, our opportunity, our tolerance and our egalitarian sense of fairness, foundations upon which Australian men and women have served in our defence to protect and strengthen this nation.

Instead of supporting the rights of men and women who served in uniform and generations of personnel who have gone before them, the Albanese Labor government have decided to debate this legislation, which removes the right of review for veterans who served in World War II, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor and the earlier years of the Afghanistan campaign. Today, instead of recognising those who have gone above and beyond for the peace we are privileged to enjoy today, this Labor government is showing a lack of respect to our veterans and their right to recognition.

Medallic recognition of service and, in particular, for acts of gallantry, is an integral part of the Australian Defence Force. It is our way of recognising those who have gone above and beyond for the peace we are privileged to enjoy today. In my community, I have the honour and privilege to recognise our local veterans who have served our country. These veterans have gone on to do so much and give so much back to our community through our local RSLs. In Casey, my community, and also across the nation, we recognise these veterans in many different ways and areas. Anzac Day, in particular, is an important day in our nation's calendar to recognise those veterans. I start Anzac Day every year at the Lilydale RSL.

As I deliver some words to the veterans, their families and those there, I look out on thousands and thousands of locals in my community paying tribute to those who have served and given the ultimate sacrifice. They understand how important it is to recognise our veterans. I have no doubt every person in my community who attends the ceremonies on Anzac Day would be outraged to learn that we are making it harder to recognise our veterans. I want to pay credit to the RSLs of Casey: the Mt Evelyn RSL, the Lilydale RSL, the Upwey Belgrave RSL, the Healesville RSL, the Dandenong Ranges RSL, Yarra Glen RSL, Warburton RSL, the Upper Yarra RSL and the Monbulk RSL, who do so much to make sure that our veterans are supported today and that we recognise those who served. They have not had the opportunity to be consulted about this change in legislation. I've spoken to some of the presidents, who had no idea this was coming. You would think they would. I know many other RSLs have not been consulted, but they deserve the respect to be given the opportunity to engage in this process and not be blindsided. Our RSL presidents come to me time and time again to make sure that our veterans get the recognition they deserve.

That veteran I mentioned at the start of my speech—when I first engaged with his case, it was through the Lilydale RSL president, Bill Dobson. Not only do RSLs make sure that our veterans are supported and recognised; they open the doors to local students to teach them about the history of the brave Australians who served our country. They teach them not to glorify war but to provide an opportunity to learn about the sacrifice that so many Australians made and to pay our respects to all those who served, those who lost their lives serving and those who are currently serving. I can't help but think about the message that this legislation sends to those RSLs and also to the young people all across Casey and across the community. It's so important that we make sure the next generation are educated and that we help our young people understand these sacrifices.

I want to thank and recognise Bill Dobson and the Lilydale RSL, who have initiated the Don Parsons Memorial ANZAC Creative Writing Prize. Don Parsons was a former Lilydale RSL president, who passed away in 2021 while president. Bill wanted to make sure that his legacy continued. The reason Bill wanted to continue this was multifaceted, but, importantly, Don Parsons campaigned, raised awareness and raised money to make sure that the cenotaph in the main street of Lilydale was rebuilt so that our veterans could be recognised. I was lucky enough to know Don Parsons well before he passed. What I can say with confidence is that, if Don Parsons were aware of this legislation, his feedback to the government could not be repeated in this House, because it would be considered unparliamentary. But Don Parsons was legend of our local community, and he'd be heartbroken to know that it is harder for veterans today that it has been in the past. Those medals on Anzac Day that we see the veterans and their families wear, particularly the young schoolchildren who wear the medals of their grandparents—this will make it harder for them to wear those medals, because there will be less to be recognised.

This legislation will also goes to the heart of the hypocrisy of the Albanese Labor government and the complete hypocrisy of this prime minister. Previous speakers spoken about this, and it's important we continue to highlight this. This is a prime minister that stands for nothing. Under this legislation, Teddy Sheean would never have received his Victoria Cross. If this legislation were implemented a decade ago, Teddy Sheean would not have received the Victoria Cross. In 2020, our prime minister was very happy to ride on the coattails of the courage of Teddy Sheean, and he coauthored an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph on 24 May 2020, talking about Sheean's immense bravery and how it ought to have been recognised without hesitation. The Prime Minister said:

If ever there is an image that captures the definition of courage as grace under pressure… surely there was a deed worthy of the highest military honour… Teddy Sheean deserves the Victoria Cross.

In 2020, we had the then opposition leader—who was just short of becoming prime minister—happy to write an op-ed talking about how great Teddy Sheean was and how important it was that his honour was recognised. He's now the Prime Minister of this country and has made a decision to bring in legislation that wouldn't recognise this honour. What absolute hypocrisy, what a disgrace to all veterans to that would happen. On 18 June 2020, he also said in a speech to parliament:

The point of having an independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit.

The tribunal unanimously supported Tasmanian hero Teddy Sheean getting a VC.

It is beyond belief that this prime minister would say that and is now actively bringing legislation to ensure a similar circumstance could not happen again.

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to mark Vietnam Veterans' Day in my community. It's important that we talk about Vietnam Veterans' Day because we know the challenges that our Vietnam veterans suffered when they returned to Australia. It links to this in terms of not paying respect to our veterans. It was a day that we paid tribute to more than 60,000 Australians who served in the Vietnam War. Their courage, resilience and unwavering dedication forged a legacy that is an integral part of our national story. It was wonderful to join the community to pay tribute to those Vietnam veterans. I want to thank the Yarra Valley Vietnam Veterans Day Committee, the Vietnam Veterans Outer Eastern Melbourne and all of our local RSLs that put so much in to make sure that day was a special day.

As I said at the start, there is no problem here to solve. There is no need for this legislation. In fact, it completely contradicts the statements of the Prime Minister in 2020. It is disappointing and it is heartbreaking that the veterans of our country now have to go through this change when it is not needed, it is not required, it is going to cause damage to our veterans and it serves no purpose for the Australian people.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The defence community is a hugely important part of my community of Wentworth. I'm honoured to host three major defence communities in Wentworth, including HMAS Watson, Victoria Barracks and HMAS Kuttabul on Garden Island, as well as hosting a huge number of RSLs in my community, including the Paddington-Woollahra RSL Sub-Branch, the Bondi Junction-Waverley RSL Sub Branch, Rose Bay RSL Sub-Branch, North Bondi RSL Club, the New South Wales Police RSL Sub Branch, Bronte RSL Sub Branch, Coogee Randwick Clovelly RSL sub-Branch, the Waverley RSL Sub-Branch and the Eastern Suburbs Leagues Club. That really represents the depth of importance that the defence community has in my electorate.

We host the east coast's main navy. I run past HMAS Kuttabul almost every weekend, and I see many members of the community out at Anzac Day services and other places. I have, myself, and I think the broader Wentworth community have enormous respect for everything that our defence community and also our veterans have given to this country. It's part of the reason why I decided to ask to join the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in this term. I think now and from now on defence is going to become only more important to us in this country, and that means that we are going to have rely more on the good people who are in our defence forces, as well as our veterans, to look after us and to keep us safe in very uncertain times.

Talking to the community that I just described, both the existing bases and also the RSL community—it's with their interests that I have approached this bill. I'll be honest. My community and I have enormous concerns about this bill. I don't doubt the government intention here and I don't want to attribute bad motives to this bill, but I need to recognise that, in its current form, I will not support this bill, because it does not have the support of the veterans community, and that is for good reason.

The defence honours and awards system is of enormous importance to the defence community. This is not just about recognition of acts of service and sacrifice. It is also a social contract with those who have been trusted to serve and a recognition of what they have achieved. It underpins morale in the defence community, it conveys institutional respect—respect from the government and respect from all Australians—for what has been given and presents a transparent and dignified process for acknowledging extraordinary service.

Every Anzac Day I attend numerous services across the community, including, I think, one of the biggest in the country at North Bondi—a dawn service. I see the respect from the kids who get up at five o'clock in the morning to be there with thousands of other people and watch people with those medals either for themselves or for loved ones who are no longer with us. That respect—I think it's almost all, frankly, of the young kids in our community—is really important. It is about showing respect for those who make a contribution to this country which is not necessarily well paid. It is dangerous, but it is incredibly important work. Those medals really showcase people who have not just done the day-to-day work but gone above and beyond in the service of their country.

When I started to examine the bill more closely, one of the biggest concerns that were raised with me is the proposed time limit on tribunal reviews. Under this bill, once an honour or award application has been rejected, no appeal to the independent tribunal would be possible if the relevant operation occurred 20 or more years ago. This threshold effectively excludes recognition for veterans of conflict in Vietnam, Korea and Timor; some of the early Afghanistan conflict; and parts of the Iraq deployment, removing appeal avenues for the majority of tribunal applicants who have been heard between 2020 and 2023 and the majority of applicants who are current veterans in our community.

I believe that is not appropriate. I believe that is unjust and may halt the recognition of veterans who have made valuable contributions to our country's, and other countries', safety. I believe that they should be allowed that right of appeal. I believe that that restriction is unfair to those who seek that validation, fairness or correction decades after their service, and I have met some of those individuals in Wentworth and heard some of those stories of seeking that appeal and that support. I want to recognise, also, that the rejection of that sort of honour is very powerful in terms of its negative impact on individuals in this situation. I also support the repeal of overly restrictive provisions about who can submit review applications on behalf of our veterans. This flexibility is really important, ensuring that advocates, whether they are lawyers, veterans' representatives or appointed proxies, can act in support of those who, through age, illness or inability, may struggle to manage their own appeals. At a minimum, individuals affected by this cut-off should have the right to nominate advocates to pursue genuinely independent tribunal review on their behalf.

On this basis, I support the coalition's amendments, which would remove the 20-year eligibility limit for tribunal review, ensuring fairness irrespective of the passage of time; require that the decision-makers proactively inform applicants of their tribunal review rights, guaranteeing transparency so that those eligible fully understand their rights and the appeal process; and repeal restrictions on who can be an applicant for review on behalf of affected persons. I believe that these are constructive and useful amendments to the bill and would make a material difference in improving the bill, which I believe is otherwise deeply flawed right now. I understand that the tribunal, which is an independent statutory body, is also expressing opposition to some of the changes that I've described here in my speech today.

Finally—I'll just put it simply—our veterans deserve a system grounded in fairness, clarity and lasting recognition. This bill, if passed in its current form, would undermine that trust. Let us ensure that our defence honours and awards system truly upholds the values and sacrifices that members of the defence forces have made and which it purports to honour.

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

I rise today to speak on Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. I acknowledge that the minister is in the House today, and I want to say to him that I appreciated the briefing we had the other night, but I must admit that, when I went away and had a closer look at this bill and had a ring around my electorate, I came to the conclusion that I needed to jump up and speak on this today.

This bill amends key features of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal was established to provide an independent and fair review of defence honours and awards decisions. It exists as an independent statutory body and has finalised 465 reviews since its commencement in 2008. I have several concerns with this bill, which have come to light to me over the past 48 hours or less, and I'll briefly outline them.

This bill has been rushed through the House with consultation, with veterans, that seems very light. In fact, veterans in my electorate of Indi tell me that they're blindsided by this. There's apparently been little or no consultation with them or their representative bodies and no scrutiny by a committee of parliament.

I've been speaking to veteran leaders in my electorate and, really, they didn't know what I was talking about when I rang them. They didn't know this bill was coming. They're concerned about the impact. They're concerned, particularly, about the impact on their membership. It begs the question, if they didn't know it was coming, if they had no sense of this, what consultations really occurred?

I've spoken with RSL Victoria who, likewise, feel blindsided that this bill's being rushed through without the voices of veterans truly being heard. They tell me that they can't see why this bill is really a priority when there are still so many outstanding recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. They're completely bewildered.

This bill limits who can apply for review of decisions in relation to defence awards and honours. Firstly, it imposes a 20-year time limit on reviews, which would exclude entire generations of veterans. We've heard, from contributions this morning, that we're not talking about veterans from the Boer War, we're talking about veterans who are still active members of our community from recent wars. We've heard too, from many contributions this morning, that this bill would mean that the recent Victoria Cross recipient Teddy Sheean would have been ineligible.

I was in this House when there were contributions from many members of parliament lauding the Victoria Cross award going to the extraordinary Teddy Sheean. In fact, the Prime Minister himself said: 'It's never too late to honour the meaning of "Lest we forget" or to commemorate the courage of one of our own.' That's what he said about Teddy Sheean. Now this government's bill means that it will be too late to recognise heroes like Teddy Sheean. If it goes through, it will be too late.

Secondly, it narrows who can apply for a review, shutting out advocates and supporters who, so often, stand in for veterans who are too physically or mentally unwell to fight these battles themselves. They've fought battles, but this one—arguing for an honour or award—is a battle too far to go.

Thirdly, it introduces a six-month deadline to seek review, knowing full well that many veterans are never even told that they have that right. Indeed, they may be dealing with mental or physical health issues that limit their ability to respond in a timely fashion.

These aren't minor or technical changes, they are significant. They significantly reduce the ability of veterans, their families and advocates to seek review for decisions made by Defence. I listened carefully to the speeches of both the minister and the shadow minister this morning and they made a big impact on me, particularly listening to the shadow minister, the member for Gippsland, and his experiences when it came to seeking the award for Teddy Sheean and, finally, having it approved. It was compelling. But at least he could do it—he could not do it under this legislation.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had the fortune to do it.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

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

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

You said families can seek a review.

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

Families can seek a review for a defence award; that was clear. They can seek that review.

No, they can't, and I was clear about that. I think it's very unfortunate that the shadow minister seeks to take issue with something that I was very clear about.

All these issues are ones I've identified as causing a problem with the tribunal, and that's what we have sought to respond to. Some of these issues have been raised by the tribunal. It's why I've looked at what the tribunal had asked Defence to consider and where it had previously sought agreement with Defence for amendments to be made. This is not being led by Defence. These are the issues that the bill is seeking to address. I should say, just to clarify an issue raised by the crossbench, that nothing in the restrictions on who can seek review would restrain someone who can validly seek review from using an advocate or others to assist them in the conduct of that review.

Now, reasonable people may differ—though nothing I've heard from the opposition today has been expressed reasonably. Nothing the opposition has canvassed is actually an argument against the provisions of the bill. At best they may amount to a basis for adjustment. I would hope that the opposition, especially the former ministers that have had responsibility for this area, would want to be constructive in dealing with this issue. I live in hope.

The tribunal has existed for 1½ decades. It is entirely appropriate and reasonable that at this point its operations should be refined and we should ensure that it is fit for purpose in the 21st century. Hyperbolic, rhetorical approaches—based on what are clearly not the facts that apply to what the legislation seeks to do—are not helpful for constructive legislation in this place. It's for this reason that we oppose the amendments that have been put forward by the shadow minister. The amendments put forward by the shadow minister effectively denude the bill of any import in any event. However, I look forward to dealing with the shadow minister, the opposition and all interested parties as the bill moves through the processes of the parliament, where reasonable people may take reasonable approaches to differences of opinion. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The question before the House is that the bill be now read a second time.

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

In accordance with standing order 43, further consideration of the bill will be made an order of the day for a later hour.