Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 is certainly a friendless bill, and it's an absolute embarrassment that it got to this. This bill should never have seen the light of day. The fact that of the 75 submissions to our Senate inquiry into the bill the only submitter supporting this bill was the Department of Defence tells us everything we need to know about the government's shocking failure to consult with ADF members, veterans and their families.

I was very pleased to hand down the coalition's dissenting report into this bill with Senator McLachlan after running an inquiry, which highlights the monumental flaws. How dare this government propose a time limit on the recognition of acts of bravery and courage and gallantry by ADF members and veterans—a period of 20 years. The words, 'We will remember them, lest we forget,' mean something. Those words honour all who serve or served our nation, including those who made the ultimate sacrifice, so that future generations can live in peace and freedom. The courage and the bravery of our veterans are never lost to time.

It is extraordinary that this bill sought to raise the recognition of acts of heroism and gallantry beyond a limited period of 20 years. This is so deeply offensive. It's also contrary to the expectations of Australians that the men and women who wore our uniform should be honoured for all time. Australians do not place a time limit on gratitude. They do not forget the sacrifice once the decades pass. Our national character is built on a solemn promise to remember always. And this bill breaks that promise in a way which is profoundly disrespectful.

In our dissenting report we made two recommendations: that this bill be withdrawn from the Senate Notice Paper, which is consistent with the coalition's position supporting the motion by Senator David Pocock and others; and we also recommended the Australian government not seek to make any changes to the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal unless such changes are requested or supported by the tribunal and key stakeholders. I want to refer to the media release put out by Mr Keogh, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, late last night, when the government flagged it would be moving this motion, rather than waiting till tomorrow, when it was listed to be removed from the Notice Paper. I cannot believe—and I condemn the minister, because he said, 'It's unfortunate that, following the introduction of the bill, the opposition engaged in an inflammatory misinformation campaign instead of engaging constructively with the government about its concerns or areas for improvement.' This minister has a tin ear for the deep concerns of ADF members and veterans right across this country. If he had bothered to listen to anyone, he would know that this is a dog's breakfast—that this bill cannot be fixed—and that is why there's overwhelming support in the Senate for removal of this bill and hope that it is removed forevermore.

We are also strongly recommending this, as to any changes—and I say this as the deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee and the chair of the references committee. The government is now saying it wants to consult further. We're recommending that there should be no changes unless they are requested or supported by the tribunal and key stakeholders.

We've heard in this debate from Senator McKenzie and Senator David Pocock how flawed the bill is, how there was no consultation and that this bill should never have seen the light of day in this parliament. I really do want to address one particular issue in the committee's government majority report, which seeks to mischaracterise the chilling impact the bill would have on the recognition of historic cases of heroism. In the committee's majority report it states:

The Committee notes that the cases of Teddy Sheean VC and Private Richard Norden VC have received significant public attention. The Committee acknowledges that Defence would retain the ability to review applications for historical defence honours and awards. Further to this, the Bill would retain the provision that enables the Minister for Defence Personnel to direct the Tribunal to undertake an inquiry.

This is a complete mischaracterisation of the ability of the minister to conduct inquiries. I want to make this very clear. Both Teddy Sheean VC and Private Richard Norden VC were initially denied the awarding of the Victoria Cross precisely because Defence rejected these nominations. So the attempt to now argue that Defence's internal review mechanisms would have been adequate undermines the very reason that these cases required external scrutiny and review by the tribunal, because we know that, if this bill were ever to be passed by this parliament, cases like Teddy Sheean's and Private Richard Norden's would be excluded from review by the tribunal.

I also want to pick up the committee's assertion in relation to the minister's powers, because the committee said that 'the Minister would continue to have the power to direct the Tribunal to undertake an inquiry'. This contradicts the foundational purpose of the tribunal itself. The tribunal was established as an impartial, expert body, designed to independently assess gallantry and service, not to act at the direction or discretion of the minister of the day. Ministerial inquiries have historically been reserved for broader matters, such as recognition of operations, units or campaign-wide issues. They have not been used to determine individual medallic recognition, principally because such decisions demand independence free from political influence.

So I say: shame on the government for not recognising that it has made a monumental mistake and for not consulting with the defence and veterans community, but also shame on the minister for trying to completely distort what has happened here. To accuse the opposition of misinformation is completely false, and he should hang his head in shame. The only one who's spreading misinformation with comments like that is the minister himself. I, of course, strongly support the removal of this bill from the Senate Notice Paper. It should have happened in the lasting week of the parliament. I regret that the government stymied and stalled to ensure that that didn't happen, and they've now come crawling back into the Senate to basically admit their errors.

I want to briefly reflect not only on the gross lack of consultation but on the evidence of the tribunal chair, Mr Stephen Skehill, because his evidence was compelling. He said:

If it is passed by the federal parliament, the sole beneficiary of the bill will be the Department of Defence, which will no longer be accountable to ADF members and veterans, their families and their supporters for the most significant decisions it takes in relation to the Defence honours and awards sought for ADF service. It appears that Defence regards its present obligation to explain and defend its adverse decisions as an unacceptable imposition. The unequivocal fact is that there is not a single provision in this bill that would generate any benefit for any ADF member or veteran, any of their ADF families or any of their supporters. What's far worse, with only one exception, is that every operative provision in this bill would work to the clear detriment of every ADF member and veteran, their families and their supporters, because their present rights to seek merit review of adverse Defence decisions would be either totally abolished or very significantly curtailed.

This is a deeply offensive and profoundly disrespectful proposal which diminishes the extraordinary sacrifice that every man and woman makes when they put on the uniform. It's a very poor reflection on the government that this bill ever made its way into the House of Representatives. As a result, the government and the minister have much hard work ahead to restore the trust and faith of ADF members, veterans and their families.