Darren Chester

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

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

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

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

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

8A After section 110V

Insert:

110VAAA Notification of review rights

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

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

9 After section 110VA

Insert:

110VAA Time limit for making an application for review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael McCormack

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

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

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

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

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

Phillip Thompson

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

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

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

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

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

Long debate text truncated.

Summary

Date and time: 6:22 PM on 2025-09-03
Allegra Spender's vote: No
Total number of "aye" votes: 90
Total number of "no" votes: 49
Total number of abstentions: 11
Related bill: Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025

Adapted from information made available by theyvoteforyou.org.au