Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also want to thank the government for withdrawing this terrible bill, the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. We have heard from my Senate colleagues today just how disastrous this bill would have been for our veterans and our veteran community—how impactful it would have been on their mental health and wellbeing, long after they've served our country overseas, trying to get the recognition they deserve.

We've heard a lot this morning about the imposition of the 20-year time limit on reviewable decisions relating to a defence honour, operational service award or foreign award. To me, this has very serious implications for the rights to justice and procedural fairness. It is very problematic and unfair for our veterans, who have given up their lives to serve our country and protect us and our children and grandchildren.

As Steve Pilmore, Vice-President of the Australian Commando Association, pointed out, every case should be treated on its merits regardless of when it occurred. Of course, the most famous cases that we've heard about today, the Victoria Cross recipients Teddy Sheean in World War II and Richard Norden in the Vietnam War, would have been denied this recognition, all because their actions fell outside of the 20-year reviewable time limit this bill was seeking to introduce. I'm really glad the bill has been withdrawn today, because we are seeking to protect the right to procedural fairness for the people who are willing to give up their lives for us.

As Vice-President Steve Pilmore also pointed out, bravery and gallantry do not have use-by dates, and there is a very long list of operations that would have been cut off under this 20-year time limit, including Somalia, in 1993; Timor-Leste; Iraq; the early years of Afghanistan; and Bougainville, between 1997 and 2003. There are also 2½ thousand Vietnam veterans that are still fighting for the recognition they feel they deserve. Regardless of how long ago that happened, they are still carrying the emotional and physical wounds of being conscripted and serving in Vietnam, and they are still fighting for the right to recognition. Under this bill, which has thankfully been withdrawn, they would not be able to have their appeals reviewed.

There is a very real human impact. I want to share the story of a young veteran who served in the Army Reserve but died while serving in the police force in Victoria in the year 2000. Just this year his family learned that he was eligible for an award for serving in the Reserve Army but also dying while out on the beat, serving Victorians. Had they knocked that back, he would have been denied that recognition and his family would have been denied the ability to go to the tribunal and see their young son get the recognition he deserved.

The other problem with this bill's 20-year time limit is the matter of poor record keeping, which was raised by the Department of Defence. They felt that anything beyond 20 years lacked substantial evidence to be able to call into question—that people's memories would start to fade after 20 years. I put it to you that anybody who serves overseas and is part of a significant event would find it very, very difficult to forget what happened that day. The tribunal also noted in the evidence they gave at the hearing that they actually have no problem in finding the evidence that they need to support their determinations.

Sometimes the poor record keeping is not the fault of the veterans or the serving members but in fact the fault of the Department of Defence. I heard a story of one person serving who applied for long-service leave. The dates of when he started—I think you'd remember the day that you first signed up to the Defence Force—didn't align with the records that they had, so he was fighting just to get recognised for his long service to the Defence Force. Under this bill, he would have been denied that right.

We also heard about proposed restrictions on who would be eligible to apply for review at the tribunal. Some veterans really suffer with mental ill health or physical ill health, are off doing more training or are just unable to go through the appeals tribunal themselves, and they have advocates doing that for them. Under this bill, they wouldn't have been able to do that. So I'm really pleased, again, that this bill has been withdrawn from the parliament, because that would have only added stress and anxiety to the appeals process.

The proposed six-month window was also unreasonably short. A lot of veterans weren't even aware that there was an appeals process until many, many years after their medal, award or honour had been denied. Six months is not a long time, especially when you're struggling with your mental health.

I was particularly interested in clause 76 of this defence honours and awards appeals tribunal bill. It said that the removal of an award or honour would be the political decision of the minister under the Crown and that this political decision would not be able to be reviewed at this independent tribunal. Again, I think that's a great failure of this bill to protect the rights of our veterans to seek the justice they deserve.

I'm pleased that the government listened to the concerns of our colleagues over the past few weeks, given the consultations that I heard during the hearing and the fact that 62 out of the 63 submissions were against this legislation. It wasn't, 'We need these amendments.' It was: 'I don't understand why this bill is going through. What is it trying to achieve?' Only four per cent of awards that are given by the Department of Defence are presented to the tribunal, so the workload is manageable, as the tribunal said in their evidence. The workload is absolutely manageable, and they are doing just fine on accessibility to evidence.

So why was this bill going through in the first place? To my colleague Senator Shoebridge's comments before, it's about scrutiny, it's about the power of bureaucracy and it's about transparency. As the RSL stated in its submission, administrative convenience cannot supersede veterans' rights. We must be doing everything we can to lift the morale of the Australian Defence Force. They need to have the utmost confidence in the institutions of defence, knowing that they will be accorded due recognition for their service to our country. Serving members of the ADF and veterans deserve access to an appeals process that is fair and reasonable.

Again, I want to thank the government, I want to thank Senator Pocock for bringing his motion in the last sitting period to have this bill taken off the Notice Paper and I want to thank the veterans and all the service members of the ADF for doing everything they can to protect this country.

Question agreed to.