Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 be removed from the Senate Notice Paper.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, at long last we've finally got the Labor Party here, doing the right thing—doing what this chamber sought to do when we last sat. We sought to give the respect that our veterans' community needed prior to Remembrance Day when Senator Pocock and others moved a motion to discharge this incredibly bad bill, the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, from the Notice Paper. And do you know what the Labor Party did? They stood up and fought it every step of the way. They knew it was a friendless bill then, but they could not give our veterans' community the respect that they deserve by discharging this bill prior to them gathering on Remembrance Day.

Even as late as last week, Minister Keogh was trying to resurrect this bill. He was trying to move amendments with the shadow minister, Darren Chester, who has done an amazing job standing with our veterans' community, consulting with them and not taking a backwards step when it comes to showing our veterans' community which side of parliament stands with their service for our country—that is, the Liberal Party and the Nationals. Minister Keogh has finally realised what the opposition and veterans' community have been saying from day one: that this bill is completely unwanted, unsupported and indefensible—this bill saying somehow you can put a timeframe on recognising service in our ADF, on foreign shores.

The Senate had a chance to end this debacle when we last sat. Yet, as I recall, when we stood up—when Senator Pocock stood up to speak, when Senator Shoebridge stood up to speak and when I stood up to speak—to discharge this bill from the Notice Paper, the Labor Party took every single opportunity it could to stop us from speaking and standing up for our veterans' community. It's great to see Senator Pocock and Senator Shoebridge here to celebrate the Labor Party finally coming to its senses. The question has to be: why today, when we've already put a notice on the Notice Paper to discharge the bill tomorrow? Why not just let the Senate do its work? Senator Chisholm runs in to do the Prime Minister's bidding, to discharge the bill. Where were you last time, Senator Chisholm? I didn't see you standing up to discharge this bill. It's another example of the hubris, the hypocrisy and the arrogance of this government when it comes to standing with our veteran community.

Even as late as last night, when I was at church over in Reid, at St John's, a member of our veterans community came up to me and said: 'We have to discharge this bill. Please, Senator, can you help us?' There is a lot of angst out there in the broader community about the Labor Party's failure to listen. I want to congratulate the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for handing down its report into this bad bill, and the coalition for its strong dissenting report into this bad legislation. I'm glad Minister Keogh spent the weekend reading the coalition's dissenting report and I'm glad he has come to his senses overnight.

Ex-service organisations and even the independent tribunal have repeatedly warned the government that this bill will be harming veterans wellbeing, because it essentially says that the Australian government thinks that there is a time limit on service recognition. We know that whether it is a decade, two decades, four decades, five decades post an incident in the theatre of war, or even in peacekeeping duties, our servicemen and women deserve to be recognised, that research uncovers deeds of valour and courage that need to be recognised. For the children and grandchildren in particular of deceased veterans, the time limit was incredibly hurtful and harmful to their wellbeing, and yet Labor, despite hearing from veterans communities, ploughed on regardless—very typical of its approach—dismissing the very people it claims to support.

Now the government are clinging to this unsalvageable legislation by offering vague promises of more consultation, so it is very heartening today that they are here discharging this very bad bill, and it is incredibly disappointing, and yet typical of their arrogance, that they couldn't do that prior to Remembrance Day. And do you know why? Simply because they didn't want this chamber to do its job. They think that somehow this chamber doesn't have the right to discharge bad legislation. They tried every little technical trick in the book to stop the Senate doing in a timely fashion what we're going to do this morning.

This bill is an affront to every Australian who has had the privilege and the responsibility to wear our uniform. It represents a betrayal of trust, a cynical attempt to remove the rights of veterans and their families to seek justice, recognition and independent review. This bill doesn't solve a problem; it creates one. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, the very body targeted by this legislation, warned unequivocally that the changes proposed under the bill that we're discharging today will abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans, their families and others to seek independent merit review of Defence decisions.

We don't think the Defence Force, the defence department, is beyond being accountable to the parliament, to the Senate chamber. We think it should be held responsible. We don't think that every decision that Defence makes should be accepted without question, and neither does our community.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You kind of do!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll have your chance, Senator Shoebridge. We fully support the motion to remove this bill, and urge the government not to inflict further damage by trying to revive it. We want this bill dead, buried and cremated so that our veterans and their families know that this parliament, this chamber supports their efforts in the theatre of war.

I do want to actually call out and congratulate the shadow minister Darren Chester, who has done a mountain of work with our veterans community. He's been actually working with them and working with the crossbench to seek to highlight how negative this bill has been for our veterans community, and to generate a groundswell of community support to get this bill off the Notice Paper and to make sure it doesn't see the light of day. The national campaign calling on Labor members to reject this bill received overwhelming support with nearly 3,000 Australians signing on within a single week. It's not just the opposition, the Greens or the crossbench that think this bill is bad; everyday Australians also think this bill is negative. Let veterans, ADF personnel and their families be in no doubt—if the government attempts to bring this legislation back, we will fight it every step of the way. We will be supporting the discharge of this bad bill from the Senate Notice Paper, and let's hope it stays in the bin, where it deserves to be.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Chisholm and the government for moving this motion to withdraw this bill. I welcome the minister's commitment to further consultation, but I don't understand the urgency of this bill. This is a bad bill. This bill sought to strip veterans and defence personnel of their rights to appeal a decision to the independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. It was done under the guise of supporting veterans and defence personnel, and I think that is a big part of the reason why the Senate has fought so hard against this bill.

There are people that I represent here in the ACT who have a white card and are struggling to find a GP, and yet this is the legislation that this Senate is spending time on when it comes to veterans. We're having a Senate inquiry. We're spending time debating these things when we've had a royal commission. We have veterans urging us to do more to support them and their families, and yet we're debating this bill. In the words of the chair of the tribunal, Mr Stephen Skehill:

… in what parallel universe can Defence even contemplate claiming that the wellbeing of its people is enhanced by stripping them of their present rights to challenge Defence decisions that they believe wrongly deny them a Defence honour or award? The bill works against the wellbeing of defence personnel, notwithstanding that Defence says that is imperative.

No compelling reason was given as to why this bill was necessary. All we were told was that the tribunal had requested changes, but, when we asked the tribunal, they told us—and here is another quote from Mr Skehill:

The committee should not be beguiled by this submission. It does not withstand critical analysis. For reasons that I will explain, the Defence submission is deeply flawed. It contains errors of fact and errors of law, and, perhaps more importantly, it is grossly misleading because of both what it says and, more particularly, what it fails to say.

One of the troubling things about this bill was that there was absolutely no consultation on this bill. I thank my Senate colleagues for sending a very clear message to the government that we expect you to go through a process of consultation before you bring forward legislation.

Across 75 submissions made to the inquiry into this bill, just one submission supported the bill, and that was of course Defence's submission. The minister did pop into an ex-service organisation's roundtable to flag the bill, but that was apparently so cursory that they didn't even think to include it in the minutes of that meeting. It cannot have been a substantive debate. When I asked people who were at the meeting, they couldn't even remember it. When I asked the National President of RSL Australia whether he'd been consulted on the bill, he replied:

No, not specifically to discuss this bill. I've had meetings with the minister to discuss veterans' issues generally. I think the only discussion I've had with the minister in relation to this bill would have been by telephone, because I don't recall physically meeting in relation to this particular bill.

This sort of bill makes out our job difficult, but I would suggest that it makes the government's job even more difficult. I find it truly baffling that this was the priority bill, and the first bill, that the government brought to the Senate for veterans in this term. Instead of stripping people of their rights to review, I would really urge the government to focus on implementing the recommendations of the royal commission into veteran suicides.

How many of Defence's resources have gone into this friendless bill and will continue to go into this friendless bill when you could be implementing the 100-plus recommendations made by the royal commission? Here are just a few that I think should really be a priority for this government. There's recommendation 20, allowing victims of sexual violence in the Australian Defence Force to make a victim impact statement to the service tribunal. Recommendation 25 is on conducting a formal inquiry into military sexual violence in the ADF. There are 12 recommendations relating to sexual violence in the ADF. Implementing these should be a priority. That should have been the first bill that came to this chamber. Or how about recommendation 65—that the ADF is ensuring mental health screening for those who are at heightened risk of suicide. That seems pretty basic to me. These are the things the government and the Senate should be working on. Recommendation 70 is to improve the protocols for responding to a veteran experiencing a suicidal crisis so that it actually aligns with best practice. Recommendation 71 is increasing the rebates paid through DVA so that veterans can actually get health care. Here in the ACT, as I said at the start, veterans are increasingly being turned away or being asked to pay a whopping gap fee.

Let's focus on these, recognise the service of veterans and their families and actually work to support them. We have a recruitment and retainment crisis, and yet we're not looking after the very people who have put their lives on the line—who sacrifice so much, as do their families—as they move around this country to serve the Australian people. There's so much that we could be doing. This bill ain't it. I welcome the government withdrawing this, and I thank the Senate for their support.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say thank God—to thank the deity of your choice—that the government has finally worked out that the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 was a bill with zero friends. Let's think about the history of this bill. A bunch of Defence brass, all sitting there, polishing their shoulders, are kind of a bit pissed that members of the veterans community and serving members of the ADF actually have an independent pathway to challenge their decisions. The Defence hierarchy loathes the very idea that its decisions can have any independent oversight or any independent scrutiny anywhere. This Defence honours tribunal has been sitting there for over a decade, overturning decisions of the Defence hierarchy, and has been a place that veterans, their families and the community can go to challenge bad decisions by Defence. It happens with some procedural fairness. They follow the evidence, and time after time bad decisions by the Defence leadership have been overturned by the tribunal because they've listened to the evidence and they've seen credible arguments put. The gold brass in Defence are getting more and more agitated that there's this one place of independence in the system. So what do they do? They somehow manage to persuade the department that the tribunal should be gutted and that its independence should be stripped. They then bring in this legislation through the minister's office to just quietly try to slip through a bill to tear away the independence of the tribunal, the one place that the Defence hierarchy can actually be held to account in the multibillion-dollar scandal that is the Australian defence department and the ADF. And then, to the Labor Party's eternal shame, they do what they always do when Defence come in and ask for less scrutiny, more power and more cash. They just rubberstamped it without even thinking. To their eternal shame, every single Labor MP in the lower house voted through this bill to strip away veterans' entitlements and their ability to challenge bad decisions of the ADF. And the reason the Labor Party just rolled in to vote for it is because that's just what they do. Every time Defence asks for something, they just rubberstamp it without even turning their brains on.

Well, thank goodness we've got a veterans community that's pretty engaged at the moment. They turned their brains on, they looked at this bill, and they said. 'It's a stinker.' They said this to the government straight away, and it turns out that this is hardly a surprise. The government didn't even talk to the veterans community before they introduced this bill. They pretended it was supported by the tribunal, and then, when we finally heard from the tribunal, the tribunal said they think the bill stinks, too. It totally stinks.

It takes away the rights of families to bring applications to the tribunal to honour and respect their family members who served. It puts in an arbitrary 20-year time limit on which you can bring applications to the tribunal. It puts in an arbitrary six-month time limit in which you can challenge bad decisions by Defence. Guess who they talked to before they brought this bill in? A bunch of largely blokes with brass on their shoulders who thought emoving any independent challenge to their decisions was a great idea. They got their legislation. They got it through the Labor Party, and the Labor Party put their rubber stamp on it. The majority of members in the lower house from the Labor Party put their rubber stamp on it.

Then it comes here. And what's remarkable about this is that it's one of the first times the Senate has said no to another power grab from Defence leadership. I want to give credit to every member of the Senate who is outside of the Labor Party who actually said, 'No; for once we're going to draw a line in the sand and not just give Defence leadership whatever they want every time they ask, no questions asked, dudding the veterans community in the process.' It's a sign of at least some mild resistance to the endless power grab and the arrogance of Defence leadership, who they can just get whatever they want with no critical analysis applied.

What did we hear from the veterans community? Shannon Hennessy, the chief executive officer of the Veteran, Emergency Services and Police Industry Institute of Australia—which is much more often and more neatly called VESPIIA—made clear this at the public hearing that I participated in:

Honours are an emotional thing; I think we can all agree on that. When we start to put that pressure of timelines—what if we do find grandpa's secret box of documents in the cupboard 20 years from now, that time limit's run out and we can't recognise the work that was done? How devastating is that going to be for the family, that they finally found it and now it's gone? We would certainly argue against those time limits.

How on earth was the government bringing a piece of legislation to try and make that happen? The only answer is uncritical rubberstamping of yet another power grab from Defence leadership. Did they not think this through? Well, clearly they didn't.

VESPIIA also said that putting restrictions on who can appeal the decision—preventing grandkids, cousins and historians from being able to bring an application to the tribunal to recognise service—was an incredibly bad decision with far-reaching negative implication. As VESPIIA wrote in their submission:

This approach locks out important contributors. Many historic recognition cases have been uncovered by historians, extended relatives, or advocates, particularly where no immediate family survives. Restricting eligibility risks silencing valid claims and entrenching inequity.

But Defence leadership wanted it, you see? Defence leadership didn't want this ragtag bunch of people who could actually challenge their decisions in an open hearing before a fair minded tribunal. What they loathed most of all was that the tribunal was independent and could second-guess the bad decisions of Defence, and anything they could do to narrow that independence was what they were willing to do. To Labor's eternal shame, again they rubberstamp another power grab from Defence leadership.

Of course, this was the first major piece of new legislation about veterans brought into this parliament. We had a royal commission into veteran suicides, and what we heard—and it's woven through every recommendation in the royal commission—was that veterans need to be heard. They need to be seen, and they need to be respected. You shouldn't do anything about them without them. Talk to them. Listen to their concerns. Develop policy once you speak to veterans. That's really at the core of the royal commission recommendations. But as Ian Lindgren, the immediate past chair and advisor to the board of the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association, said at the hearing:

If we look at the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, some of the key personnel related issues were that we were to stop taking anything but a trauma informed practice to veterans. And yet, if we look at this bill and at the previous bill, which I mentioned a few moments ago, these things have just turned up.

They've turned up and surprised, traumatised, upset and agitated the veterans communities, and for what goal? Just to deliver on another power grab for Defence leadership. That's the only purpose of this bill. This is why the Greens said in our dissenting report that the government should withdraw this bill as a statement of good faith with the veterans community.

I'm not going to take a cheap political shot at the minister for doing that. I'm glad the minister has done it. Of course, it was just recognising the political reality that, if the government didn't do it on their own motion today, every single member of the Senate except for the government, as is my understanding, was going to do it for them tomorrow on a co-authored motion from Senator David Pocock, me on behalf of the Greens, and the coalition. So, yes, I'm glad it's been withdrawn today. That at least brings certainty to the veterans community that this power grab will finally not happen, and it brings it forward 24 hours. But let's just be clear about this. The Senate was going to actually, for once, show some genuine independence and knock this thing on the head tomorrow in a peaceful and nonviolent way anyhow. I'm just glad it came forward 24 hours.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our veterans won. Our Australian Defence Force members won—people in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. The government admits defeat on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill, which has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper. That's what this motion's about. This all started with a One Nation motion that I moved in the Senate to inquire into the honours and awards system.

We supported the veterans who spoke so strongly and so well at the inquiry. They're a credit to our country not only for their service but for the way they stood up and explained their case. They earned my admiration yet again. They earned my respect yet again. They based their submissions and their witness statements on data. They gave us hard, concrete examples. Then the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal spoke in the inquiry. They spoke clearly, strongly and with strong evidence. Then Defence ignored it, and the government ignored it. You turned a deaf ear to it. I want to thank the veterans again for their service and for standing up. I bet you never thought you'd have to stand up in your own country that you defended, but that's what you've done. Thank you so much for that.

With our political support, the veterans and the current serving members won. The veterans won, and I thank the Senate for that. I thank all the members of the Senate who backed us on this from the start. We are with you, veterans and current ADF members. We will continue to hold the Defence senior brass accountable and to stop the Defence senior brass from killing morale and killing the key to our defence forces that is our mateship. The Defence top brass and the government are killing our defence strength.

Australia's security is One Nation's top priority. This amendment bill has to be discharged to maintain the morale of our gallant armed forces. That means supporting our veterans and currently serving Australian soldiers in all the defence forces. We will continue to support you.

One Nation supports this motion to discharge this horrific bill from the Notice Paper. Veterans have won and currently enlisted Australian Defence Force members have won. I want to make it very clear: One Nation is proud to serve our veterans and Australian Defence Force members. One Nation will continue to put Australia first.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.