Darren Chester
Gippsland · National Party · Australia
“After four years of the Albanese government, Australians are worse off and our nation is heading in the wrong direction, with the standard of living in freefall. The heart of the problem, why Australians are worse off, is very simple: we're being led by a prime minister who simply can't tell the truth.”
“This is a prime minister who said, 'I won't BS people,' but in question time we cannot get a straight answer out of this prime minister to any question. The Prime Minister told Australians, 'My word is my bond.' Remember that?”
“We need someone like Gemma Rendell to stand up and fight for our fair share as a genuine community champion. I believe in putting locals first. For me, putting locals first means supporting our small businesses, our family owned businesses, right across the electorate of Gippsland.”
“We need those local businesses to survive. Right now, it's pretty tough in the local economy. We need you to be out there supporting local businesses at every opportunity. Winter is not a time to hibernate. Winter is a time to get out and explore Gippsland.”
“Gemma Rendell is an outstanding East Gippslander. Gemma is aiming to create history at the state election in November by becoming the first female member for the seat of Gippsland East. She is a busy young lady already. She's a farmer, a teacher, a young mum, and she's been active in our community for many years.”
“Traditionally, we've had a peak holiday season of eight to 10 weeks over the summer period where all of the accommodation is full and all of the restaurants are busy, but then it's been quiet in winter. Now we're trying to make sure we build on our winter season.”
The complete record
Every one of 444 lines we hold for Darren Chester, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 9.
“The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, the independent statutory agency established by the Gillard-Rudd government, by the Labor Party, in 2011, submitted to the inquiry that these changes would—and I quote: … 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 … That's the independent statutory agency saying that rights are being stripped from current ADF members, veterans and their families. RSL NSW said the bill is 'disgraceful' and gave evidence to the inquiry saying: We feel this Bill [is] detrimental, not only to veterans' mental and physical health when seeking reviews, but also to the value placed on their service … It goes on. I could read quotes to you all day.”
“But when it came time to vote, they all turned up. They all voted for it. I fear that they didn't really know what they were voting for. Because if they knew what they were voting for, they wouldn't have supported it. Again, the minister suggests that I have the capacity to create anxiety and uncertainty in relation to this bill, but evidence to the tribunal from independent sources suggests that it's not just me who is frustrated and angry by the government's approach to this issue.”
“What we've seen in the context of the need for additional oversight of defence is that this legislation came to the chamber with no consultation, a complete lack of respect for current serving personnel and our veterans community and their families, and there is no support in the broader community. When the legislation made it before the chamber, the minister spoke and introduced the bill and those on our side spoke. How many of the 93 backbenchers for the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives were coming in, charging behind the minister and backing him up on this most important legislation? Was it 20, 30, 40? One—one member spoke in favour of the bill. The first term member for Sturt must have copped the talking points and was dragged in there to speak in support of the bill.”
“He flatters me enormously to think that I have that capacity, because there were 63 submissions to the Senate inquiry into the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal changes, and 62 of those submissions were against it. If the minister seriously thinks that I have enough time to write 62 submissions and send them out to different organisations to sign and send them back in, he has a much higher view of my capacity than anyone in my office does. There were 63 submissions; 62 were against it. The only organisation that wrote in favour of the legislation was the Department of Defence. The Department of Defence wrote the legislation, so, thankfully, they still back their own legislation.”
“The people in our veterans' community and Australian Defence Force personnel are furious about the changes he's proposing through the legislation. If he had actually engaged with the veterans' community, ex-service organisations or current serving Australian Defence Force members, he would have known within a minute or two that this bill is unloved because it takes away the rights of veterans and ADF personnel to seek a review of Department of Defence decisions. Yesterday, in the chamber, the minister accused me of creating anxiety and uncertainty. He thinks—I appreciate the flattery, Minister—that I have the power to concoct the action which is coming his way from the organisations which are opposed to his legislation.”
“I would hasten to suggest that if this joint committee was in existence already, we would have saved ourselves—we certainly would have saved the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel—from quite an unseemly debacle which is unfolding in relation to his changes to the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. What we've seen with this bill could have been avoided if there were a committee in place to provide full and frank advice to government members before it got to the point of legislation being on the floor of the chamber. Yesterday, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs suggested that my blood pressure was increasing and that I was particularly agitated about the issue. I want to assure the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that my blood pressure is the least of his worries.”
“I want to thank them for being so forthright but also thank them for their service to the country. The men and women who put on the uniform and sign up to place themselves in harm's way if required are doing that to secure the freedoms we enjoy today. I think this defence joint committee has the potential to add to that mutual understanding and to strengthen those links between this building, the Parliament of Australia, and the men and women who serve in uniform. But this new committee must not add to bureaucracy; it must enhance it. It must provide a trusted forum to scrutinise programs and delivery without undermining Australia's national security or strategic objectives.”
“It could be on patrol, it could be on exercises, back in the base or it could be internationally. That allowed members of parliament to have those experiences to increase their understanding of how the Australian Defence Force works on the ground. The reciprocal of that is the opportunity for Defence Force personnel to spend a week in parliament. I think they get the rough end of the deal. We get out and about and have some time in incredible locations where they are based and they get to spend a week in Canberra. But nevertheless, from the conversations I have had with many of the participants this week, I have gained some additional knowledge. They have shared their insights into their jobs and what they are doing in the defence of our nation, and I want to thank them for that.”
“There's a lot to be gained by increasing understanding in this place of our Australian Defence Force and how it operates. I really do need to note that this week we have the privilege of 47 Australian Defence Force personnel in the parliament as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. The genesis of that program was in 2001 when it was acknowledged there were not many members of parliament with direct defence experience. Coming out of World War II, members of parliament were likely to have served or had immediate family members who had served. But by 2001 it was not the case and the decision was made to establish the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. That program allows members of parliament to spend some time embedded with our Australian Defence Force.”
“I recently returned from a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan, where we were given some further insights into the types of coercive activity being experienced in Taiwan from mainland China. So there is no question the strategic environment is uncertain, and the coalition does support the principle of this bill to strengthen the parliamentary oversight of defence, provided the government remains both bipartisan and serious in its intent. We are quite unique here in Australia by not having an oversight committee of this nature for defence among our AUKUS partners, so I think it is time for such an approach. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence must build confidence in defence and not become another platform for political games.”
“I do thank the opportunity to rise on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. In accordance with the previous speaker, I acknowledge this is a very important bill, particularly as Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. That's an opinion shared by the Prime Minister, the defence minister and those on this side of the House. You only need to open the newspaper on a daily basis to see reports of conflict in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other activities including grey zone activities in the Taiwan Strait and recent events closer to home on our shores involving the Chinese defence activities in the Tasman Sea, the circumnavigation of Australia, the release of flares near the P-8 Poseidon and sonar activities impacting Australian divers.”
“Victorians will have an opportunity in November next year to take back control of their state and get the government they deserve. They need a government which is focused on maintaining law and order. They need a government which is focused on keeping people safe. They need a government which is focused on reducing the cost of living and delivering the infrastructure and services we need. Victorians deserve better than the Victorian Labor Party.”
“Victorians are living with the consequences of Labor's weak response to crime, with 638,640 crimes reported in the year to June. That's one every 49.4 seconds—an increase of 16 per cent. The men and women in uniform who serve our community deserve better than the weak bail laws, the soft magistrates and pathetic responses by an out-of-touch Premier and a Labor government that has run out of ideas. I have small-business owners in my electorate who are planning to close their shops because they can't afford to remain open, while shoplifters take whatever they want because they know they will just get a slap on the wrist. Victorians deserve better. As a born optimist, I believe there's nothing wrong with Victoria that a good government can't fix.”
“The alleged offender was out on bail. Almost every day there is another report of a home invasion or machete attack, often occurring in broad daylight in our shopping centres or on our streets. Victorians deserve better. After the men and women in blue faced another weekend of violent street protests, Victorian police commander Wayne Cheeseman said what everyone knows—what everyone knows except the Premier, of course—when he said, 'I think Melbourne has had a gutful.' Even the new chief commissioner, Mike Bush, can see what the Premier refuses to acknowledge. He said: We have a crime problem here in Victoria. The levels of offending we are seeing in our community are entirely unacceptable. Victorians deserve better.”
“The Labor Party has divided Victorians based on race and failed to maintain social cohesion. The Labor Party has cut funding to regional roads, leaving us to navigate a minefield of potholes which contribute to car crashes and extra costs for motorists. The Labor Party has waged war on our traditional industries like forestry, fishing, farming and mining, which has cost thousands of jobs across the state. Worst of all, the Labor Party has failed to keep Victorians safe in their homes and on their streets. Victorians deserve better. Everyone knows Victoria has a major crime problem—everyone except the Premier. The Premier has told the media, 'Melbourne's CBD is safe.' But just this month we saw graphic footage of a 36-year-old woman who was stabbed near the intersection of Little Bourke and Spencer Streets at 7.40 in the morning.”
“Every baby born in Victoria today starts their life with a $30,000 debt thanks to the Victorian Labor Party. Every major project in Melbourne today has blown out in cost, and Victorian taxpayers are picking up the bill for the CFMEU rorts and Labor's incompetence. Future generations will pay the price for Labor's failures in the once-great state of Victoria. Victorians deserve better. The Labor Party gave Victoria the most lockdowns in the world during COVID, against the advice of the Australian Chief Medical Officer. The Labor Party has allowed corruption to run wild on building sites and racked up a massive debt for future generations to pay. The Labor Party has introduced new taxes which target everyday Victorians, adding to the cost of living and making it impossible for people to get ahead.”
“(): As a proud Victorian, it is a mixture of sadness, anger and frustration that I feel as I stand here and state one simple fact: the state of Victoria is broken. An old saying about democracy is that the government you elect is the government you deserve, but Victorians deserve much better than this. Victoria is in the middle of a social and economic crisis, and Labor is the guilty party that put us there. When you've been in government for 22 out of the last 26 years, you can't blame anyone else for the crisis we face in every corner of our state. The lawlessness and the violence are not limited to Melbourne. Premier Jacinta Allan has been there every step of the way, and, as a cabinet minister and now Premier, the buck stops in her office.”
“Under the legislation the Labor Party rammed through the House of Reps, which everyone over there voted for, Teddy Sheean doesn't get a VC, Richard Norden doesn't get a VC, Harry Smith's troops at Long Tan do not get the medallion recognition they so rightly deserve, and the Labor Party voted for it. I say to the minister: why? Why, Minister? You can't hide forever. This missing-in-action minister has given no reason whatsoever as to why he has gone down this pathway. Why is your government showing no respect to veterans and no respect to Australian Defence Force personnel? Why won't you just bin this bad bill before you do more— (Time expired)”
“I am sad to report that an outbreak of arrogance and hubris has infected the entire Labor caucus. How else can we explain the mean-spirited plan, with its complete lack of respect, which is the Labor proposal to put a use-by date on 'we will remember them'? This is without any consultation—no consultation whatsoever—with service organisations and without any proof that there is a problem to be solved. The Labor Party is removing rights for Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans to appeal decisions which would impact some of the most heroic Australians in our history.”
“Trust the science from people have not been bought off to promote this religious ideology that all timber harvesting is bad. Ignore the zealots in this debate. This is dangerous for our communities. People and native animals die because of poorly managed forests, and the Labor Greens aren't just killing industry; they are killing regional communities. I urge the Labor Party to stop selling out blue collar jobs in the regions for Greens preferences in the city and support the Australian native hardwood timber industry.”
“I will quote from their conclusions: The public, policy makers and politicians should be wary of the increasing selective and unbalanced use of science wrapped in ideology to promote anti-forestry views. They go on: Rural communities and the nation can benefit in a number of ways by adopting science-based policies and management practices. They go on: … 'theoretical' claims that timber harvesting increases the intensity of wildfire, leads to greater net C emissions, reduces catchment water yields and threatens koalas have all been discredited in several detailed scientific analyses during the last few years. I urge those opposite: read more about the native forestry debate. Don't rely on your pet scientists. Don't rely on the best money science can buy, like Professor David Lindenmayer.”
“Dr John Raison and Dr Sadanandan Nambiar are both former CSIRO chief research scientists, Dr Glen Kile is a former chief of the CSIRO division of forestry and Dr Tony Bartlett has extensive experience in managing native forests and is a leading expert in forest fire management and suppression. The article I refer to is worth reading for anyone with actual interest in the facts when it comes to forestry and the threat to biodiversity from wildfires in poorly managed forests. At a time when we are trying to build more homes, harvesting cutbacks by state governments have led to more imports and we are fed the lies that harvesting equals deforestation. Under our laws, harvested areas must be regenerated. Timber is the ultimate renewable resource.”
“As the motion indicates, some of Australia's leading forest scientists have acknowledged we have the knowledge, the practical skills and the regulatory framework to sustainable manage our native forest, including for timber harvesting in small, carefully targeted areas. This is not dodgy science from environmental activists who they buy to get a compliant voice and mouthpiece to trump up their unfounded claims; these are real scientists with peer reviewed papers and years of practical experience. I refer to an article in particular, published earlier this year by four leading scientists, which called out the misinformation in the forest debate.”
“We have some of the strict environmental standards in the world, and when we ban harvesting of timber in Australia it's a very bad day for orangutans, because we just import more timber from developing nations. We have a world-class sustainable native hardwood timber industry in Australia which delivers social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits for our nation, and those timberworkers provide invaluable skills and practical support to their communities during times of natural disasters, particularly bushfires. I'd also add the sustainable native hub timber industry is part of the answer to reducing Australia's carbon emissions, as timber products actually sequester carbon in our floorboards, furniture and other products.”
“This is all in the name of political science. This has nothing to do with the environment. I've said many times in this place that you have two choices when it comes to timber: either you use your own in an environmentally sustainable way or you use someone else's. Our nation already has a multibillion-dollar trade deficit in timber products. We have states like Victoria taking hardwood from other areas. Think of St Kilda pier, the West Gate Tunnel artwork project, Gippsland Lakes jetties in my electorate—all that timber came from other states. How is it a positive environmental outcome to be shipping and trucking timber thousands of kilometres to Victoria because the Victorian government banned the native hardwood timber industry in its own state?”
“I must confess to a sense of deja vu here if not complete futility in bringing this motion to the attention of the House, because those opposite have demonstrated complete and utter contempt for the forest industry in Australia over the past 20 years. Driven by their desperate need to secure Green preferences in the city they have sold out blue-collar workers in regional communities, thousands of jobs have been lost, communities have been destroyed and the regions are less safe because we have lost the equipment and the skilled workforce which we've always relied on during major bushfire events. Labor governments in Western Australia, in Victoria and in New South Wales have either completely banned the native hardwood timber industry or decimated it to the point that it will struggle to remain viable.”
“I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that: (a) some of Australia's leading forest scientists have acknowledged we have the knowledge, practical skills and regulatory framework to sustainably manage our native forests, including for timber harvesting on small, carefully targeted areas; (b) we have a world-class and sustainable native hardwood timber industry in Australia which delivers social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits for our nation; (c) timber industry workers provide invaluable skills and practical support to their communities during times of natural disasters, particularly bushfires; (d) banning native timber harvesting in Australia will result in more imported timber products, often sourced from countries with poorer environmental protocols; and (e) a sustainable native hardwood timber industry is part of the answer to reducing Australia's carbon emissions as timber products sequester carbon in our floorboards, furniture and other timber products; (2) notes that the Victorian and New South Wales state governments have made illogical decisions to ban native hardwood timber harvesting which is based on political science, not environmental science; and (3) urges the Government to: (a) recognise that the sovereign capability to maintain a sustainable native hardwood timber industry is an issue of national importance because of the impact on house prices, supply chain considerations, carbon sequestration, biodiversity and community safety; (b) support a taxpayer-funded public information campaign to explain the importance of the native hardwood timber industry and dispel the myths perpetuated by environmental activists; and (c) resist any further attempts to ban the sustainable harvesting of native hardwood timber.”
“The tribunal has said this bill, the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, takes away the rights of ADF personnel and veterans. The tribunal warned this will detract from the integrity of the Defence honours and awards system. On this side of the House, we will always remember them. I urge the Labor Party to do the same. Labor was very quick to politicise the campaign for Teddy Sheean to receive a VC. Under this legislation, it wouldn't have been possible. A government member interjecting You've found the voice now! Does anyone there have the courage to stand up and fight this bill? Why is Labor putting a use-by date on 'we will remember them'? Why is Labor taking away the rights of Australian Defence Force personnel— (Time expired)”
“'We will remember them'—four simple words but four incredibly powerful words in the 'Ode of Remembrance'. There's no use-by date. It's not 'we will remember them when it's convenient for the Labor Party', but this prime minister, the veterans minister and the entire Labor Party are putting a use-by date on 'we will remember them'. Under legislation that everyone on that side voted for, we will only remember them when their heroic actions fit into a convenient timeframe of, say, the last 20 years. You can speak up now, Treasurer; you didn't speak up when the bill was going through the House! Labor's plan to place a time limit on reviews under the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal means Teddy Sheean and Richard Norden would not have got a Victoria Cross. That's what it means, Treasurer!”
“I'll quote the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia: 'This is the stuff of a dictatorship.' I'll also quote the Vietnam Veterans' Federation of Australia: 'We find the decision by the government regarding changes to the act in relation to honours and awards which allows for retrospective honours submissions to be unjust, unnecessary and immoral to the highest degree.' I thank the chamber.”
“This mob is trying to gut the independent statutory agency from medallic recognition of some of our nation's greatest heroes. It's a disgrace and the minister knows it. The government has provided no proof that the existing system is broken. The capacity to review decisions made by Defence was a deliberate design feature of the tribunal when it was established by the Gillard government. Again I ask: Is this a cost-cutting measure? Is the legislation intended to reduce the workload of the tribunal and reduce sitting fees of tribunal members? Nothing else makes sense. 'We will remember them' was never intended to come with a use-by date. Veterans groups have been scathing in their assessment of this government's arrogance.”
“'Detract from the integrity of the Defence honours and awards system'—that is from the tribunal's own submission to the inquiry. That is a polite way of saying that this legislation is a complete disgrace. The submission from the tribunal also notes: … the measures contained in the Bill go far beyond technical changes of a "tidying up" nature or the addition of machinery provisions to allow the more efficient conduct of business of the Tribunal. Instead, they would effectively deprive ADF members and veterans and their families of their current and very important rights to hold Defence to account, and would preclude the nation's recognition of some of its greatest heroes. That is not the coalition saying this. This is the independent statutory agency which this mob is trying to gut.”
“In his submission, Mr Skehill provides a long list of the most heroic Australians in history who would never have received medallic recognition because the actions occurred outside the 20-year timeframe or were not lodged by a person in the chain of command or an eyewitness. The Albanese government is putting a use-by date on the 'Ode of remembrance' and on the line 'We will remember them'. The submission concludes: In the view of the Tribunal, the Bill in its present form would work to the very significant disadvantage of ADF members and veterans, their families and other supporters by abolishing existing rights of independent merits review in the Tribunal and would thereby detract from the integrity of the defence honours and awards system.”
“Despite the lack of consultation with ADF personnel and veterans, the Albanese government is undermining the independence of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. Stephen Skehill, the chair of this independent agency, has been completely upfront about his concerns in his submission to the Senate inquiry, released today. He agrees with the coalition that, under these changes, a very substantial majority of the applications for review decided by the tribunal since it was established would be invalidated. He also takes exception to the minister's misleading parliament by suggesting the tribunal was consulted.”
“It was this review process which led to the decisions to posthumously award a Victoria Cross to Teddy Sheean and to Richard Norden, along with individual recognition for the bravery of Delta Company at Long Tan. Under the changes rammed through the House of Representatives without proper consultation with ex-service organisations, the Albanese government is introducing a 20-year time limit on reviewable actions. In effect, it would mean the actions of Australian Defence Force personnel in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and any other conflict outside the 20-year timeframe could not be considered, even if compelling new evidence were provided. The coalition believes that the solemn pledge 'We will remember them' in the 'Ode of remembrance' was never intended to come with a use-by date.”
“Minister, I want to draw your attention to the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 and seek to establish a motive for why this bizarre piece of legislation has even seen the light of day. In the context of this consideration in detail, I would seek your advice as to whether this is a cost-cutting measure. Is the government's plan to effectively neuter the tribunal and attempt to save money? For context, the tribunal was established in 2011, with the capacity to review honours and awards decisions made by the Department of Defence dating back to 1939. As a statutory agency, it was intended to act independently of government and, while it has undertaken hundreds of reviews, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it has been overwhelmed by the workload.”
“Our country is heading in the wrong direction under a leader who has absolutely no interest in governing for all Australians. The great divider just wants to keep fighting tories.”
“The Prime Minister was at it again, dividing Australians and forcing Australians to make choices that they didn't want to make, all because he wanted his big moment and wanted the mythology of Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating and Kevin Rudd—the great divider, dividing Australians for base political opportunities. It concerns me. Australia has never been more divided in my lifetime than it is today. Social cohesion is being undermined every day, and this prime minister is still obsessed with his university-days passion of fighting tories. The lack of leadership by this weak prime minister on key issues has contributed to the violent protests that we've seen across our country. His lack of leadership has undermined social cohesion, and it is causing enormous unrest right across our nation.”
“He didn't care at all that he was dividing Australians in the process. If the Prime Minister were actually interested in governing for all Australians, if he were actually interested in practical outcomes for Indigenous people, he would have channelled all that money and all his energies into practical projects that make a difference to the Closing the Gap targets around health, education and employment outcomes. Instead, the Prime Minister, the great divider, wasted more than $400 million of taxpayers' money on a referendum which just divided Australians even more. Sadly, his politics of division was there for all to see.”
“The Prime Minister has no respect for the 65 per cent of Australians who didn't give Labor their primary vote at the last election, and instead voted for the coalition, minor party candidates or Independents. He has no interest whatsoever in governing for all Australians. At the outset I mentioned one of the great divisions created by this Prime Minister during his first term—the Voice. This was an ill-conceived and ill-informed waste of taxpayers' money, a self-indulgent vanity project that was all about the Prime Minister's legacy. On that side of the House, in the Labor Party, they like to mythologise about their former leaders. The Prime Minister just wanted his big moment. Gough Whitlam had Lingiari, Keating had the Redfern speech, Kevin Rudd had the apology—the Prime Minister just wanted his big moment.”
“He thinks he can have three MPIs every fortnight, effectively undermining the independence of the Speaker and snubbing years of parliamentary practice in this place. Nothing is beneath the great divider when it comes to pitting those who voted Labor against those who don't vote for Labor. He proudly boasts that he likes fighting Tories. He's going to take away opportunities for members on this sides of the chamber to raise matters of public importance in our own communities. This great divider is allergic to transparency. He's allergic to accountability. It's why we have had this part-time parliament throughout 2025. It's why he thinks he can change the rules of the MPI.”
“That is his basic instinct: 'I like fighting Tories, that's what I do.' He instinctively tries to divide us, and he has no interest in governing for all Australians. Even after the election, the Prime Minister has continued to stoke division in this place. As the great divider, he has cut the staffing levels for the crossbench and the coalition. Now he's planning to cut speaking opportunities when members on this side of the chamber can raise matters of public importance. There was a motion on the Notice Paper this week that would force the Speaker to allocate three MPIs every fortnight to the government benches. He actually thinks he can have a one-party state in the parliament of Australia.”
“Dividing Australians into those who vote for Labor and those who don't is the modus operandi of the great divider. It's shameless, it's disgraceful and it explains why Labor is loathed throughout most of regional Australia. Yesterday we saw a new low in this House, because the great divider, our Prime Minister, was at it again during question time. He sought to draw some parallels between the farmers in tractors in Ballarat and Neo-Nazis intimidating the Victorian premier. He tried to link the farmers in Ballarat with Neo-Nazis in Melbourne, and created this false parallel—it was a disgraceful slur. It was only when members on this side of the chamber—including the Leader of the Nationals—called him out that the Prime Minister backed away from that disgraceful slur. The Prime Minister is actually trying to link those two activities.”
“The Prime Minister says he won't BS people, but I wonder, did he tell the people of Ballarat about all the programs he'd cut in his first term as a prime minister? The Building Better Regions program is gone. Roads of Strategic Importance—it's gone. Not only is the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program gone but members opposite turned up to cut the ribbons and unveil the plaques for the projects they didn't fund. Regional Australians didn't vote for this Prime Minister, because he cuts the programs they need. It gets fractionally worse, if you can believe it. In cutting all the coalition-era programs, the Prime Minister decided he'd have his own program, called the Growing Regions Program. It sounds good, but he cut that as well. He cut his own program.”
“And he's even created more division in this place by cutting resources for the crossbench and cutting resources for the opposition, because he hates being called out. This prime minister hates being held to account. That's why we have a part-time parliament this year. We have a part-time parliament, sitting for just eight weeks after the election, because this great divider, this prime minister, doesn't want to be held to account. And the list just goes on and on. The Prime Minister divides Australians at every opportunity, between Labor and non-Labor voters. Regional Australians have been punished the most as the great divider has cut programs. Is it any wonder he was chased out of Ballarat by angry farmers on tractors?”
“There are numerous examples of the Prime Minister as the great divider. As a product of the Labor Left, his career before politics was working for Labor MPs and working for Labor Party officials. He never misses an opportunity to divide and to conquer for political advantage, because, 'I like fighting tories; that's what I do.' This prime minister divided Australians with the Voice. He's divided Australians with his decision to recognise Palestine. He has divided Australians by offending Israel and our most important strategic ally in the United States. He is dividing Australians with his 100 per cent renewables rollout, which is tearing families and communities apart in regional areas. The Prime Minister has widened the city-country divide by cutting regional programs.”
“He'll be in all sorts of trouble when he leaves parliament, doesn't have a Comcar anymore and has to drive his own car, because he'll never give way to the right. All the dad jokes aside, the career of the most left-wing prime minister in Australian history is summed up in just one quote, and that quote is: 'I like fighting tories; that's what I do.' This prime minister is like the Great Dividing Range of Australian politics. The Prime Minister has become the great divider. He has no interest whatsoever in building a consensus and views every issue through the lens of political opportunism. 'I like fighting tories; that's what I do'—that's the boast of our prime minister. It explains everything about his divisive approach to his parliamentary career and his failure, his complete failure, to govern for all Australians.”
“As the Prime Minister scurries out of the House after another display of hubris and arrogance, I want to pass on to the House a little-known fact. It's a little-known fact that it takes this prime minister twice as long to get to Parliament House from the Lodge than any other prime minister—twice as long as any other prime minister in history. Apparently, it drives his security detail crazy, and you might ask yourself, 'Why would it take the Prime Minister so long to get from the Lodge to Parliament House?' Well, it's because he forces his Comcar drivers to turn left at every intersection. It's a lifetime habit. Every time this prime minister, the member for Grayndler, has to make any decision, he just goes further and further to the left.”
“So I ask the minister: why is the government ignoring the advice of an independent statutory agency and taking rights of appeal away from Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families? (Time expired)”
“I know they've stood the test of public scrutiny because this minister, his prime minister and his defence minister are all happily out there cheering it on when Teddy Sheean gets a VC or Richard Norden gets a VC, because the tribunal had the capacity to review decisions made by Defence dating back decades. I'll say it again: 'We will remember them' does not have a use-by date. It's not, 'We will remember them sometimes,' 'We will remember them when it's convenient,' or, 'We will remember them as long as it happened in the last 20 years.' 'We will remember them' is our solemn oath and our duty to recognise and respect servicemen and servicewomen throughout our nation's history, and this tribunal has the capacity to review Defence decisions dating back decades for a very good reason.”