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 7 of 9.
“It can't be any clearer: the tribunal that the Labor Party is trying to cut off at the knees here tonight has said expressly that it does not support the imposition of a 20-year time limit on the assessment of reviews for Defence honours and awards, and the reason why it doesn't want that 20-year time limit, from my experience in dealing with the tribunal, is that its members have always acted diligently, professionally and with integrity, and they have done a difficult job very, very well. They have an objective. They have searched through additional information and research and reports, and they have come up with decisions which have stood the test of public scrutiny.”
“We had the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system, and the tribunal specifically told the Senate inquiry that introducing a 20-year time limit for a tribunal review would '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 refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award'.”
“It specifically expressed its opposition to the 20-year timeframe. Yet, in the minister's second reading speech, apparently the tribunal wants the changes. An honourable member: It doesn't add up. I don't know. What's true? Perhaps, if the minister had expanded on his claim about the tribunal wanting the changes, we could test his reference point. But no.”
“But what would you expect next? After saying that the tribunal has raised issues and that others, over time, have raised issues, you'd think the minister would produce some evidence to make his case. You'd think that that's what he'd do. But the speech goes on with no further reference to any great contribution from the tribunal about asking to have itself cut off at the knees. There's no mention of that. So I wanted to check what the tribunal has been saying. It was very interesting to read the evidence given by the tribunal to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system. In that inquiry, the tribunal actually exposed the minister's deception from his second reading speech, because the tribunal expressed its opposition to a 20-year timeframe being imposed on it.”
“I'd just like to check to make sure no-one else wants the call. I do respect the right of other members to speak, and I thought members of the Labor Party, having realised the gravity of the bill before the chamber tonight, for consideration in detail, would be putting down their glasses and rushing down to the chamber to make a contribution, but that's clearly not the case. The minister has tried to claim that the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal itself wanted the changes which are included in the bill. In his second reading speech, the minister said: After well more than a decade of operation, it is necessary to ensure that the tribunal remains fit for purpose and to address a number of concerns that have been raised by the tribunal itself and others over time in relation to its operation. That sounds reasonable.”
“Prior to the election, why didn't the Prime Minister tell veterans and the families of veterans from World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and numerous other conflicts that he intended to remove their right to appeal Defence decisions regarding these major honours and awards? If you were so proud of the legislation, Minister, why wouldn't you have taken it to the election and tested it with the Australian people in the first place? There is no use-by date on, 'We will remember them.' There is not, 'We will remember them sometimes.' This 20-year timeframe is a complete and utter farce. No wonder that Labor Party members opposite are not in here to speak to try to defend it. (Time expired)”
“They have been exploring these very difficult cases, objectively assessing the cases and then deciding what recommendation they would put forward to government. They weren't handing out Victoria Crosses lightly; I can promise you that. The capacity to review decisions made by Defence is a design feature of the tribunal, which was established in 2011. This bill strips rights away from ADF personnel, veterans and families. The minister continues—he did it again today—to pretend that families will have the right to review of an honour under this legislation, which is simply not true. Look at your second reading speech, Minister. If you want to talk, get to the dispatch box. You are not telling the truth when it comes to families.”
“Teddy Sheean would not get a VC under this legislation, because his decision would never have been reviewed, because it was outside the 20-year time limit. Richard Norden would never have gotten a VC under this legislation—again, it's outside the 20-year time limit. And Commander Harry Smith's brave troops at Long Tan would never have been recognised, because that action occurred in the Vietnam War, outside the 20-year limitation. I would like as much as possible to be bipartisan on veterans issues, but the Labor Party has not established a good reason for this reform. The tribunal members, in my direct experience as veterans minister, have acted with diligence, with integrity and with professionalism. They have made weighty decisions about medals. They haven't been out there handing out medals in Weeties packets.”
“This has been a bipartisan position for the entire time that the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal has been in existence—and all credit to the former Gillard government for bringing the tribunal into play in 2011. It brought an end to years and decades of demands for medallic recognition without a proper process for people to pursue that recognition. What it means to have the tribunal is that an action can be brought to the attention of the Department of Defence and it can be considered. And if in fact Defence says no to, say, a Teddy Sheean or a Richard Norden or the likes of Delta Company at Long Tan, if the department says no, then it is allowed to be reviewed by the tribunal, an independent statutory body established by the Labor party for just this purpose. And it has worked. It is not broken.”
“You couldn't explain it to the crossbench. I had a briefing on Monday, and no-one could explain to me then what was so badly broken that meant you had to abolish the capacity of a statutory agency—a tribunal, in fact—to review decisions dating back decades. If you couldn't explain to me in that briefing what you were trying to fix, why would you expect the people on this side of the chamber to vote for it? As it turned out, everyone in the chamber voted against it, apart from the Labor Party. The crossbench, the Liberals and the Nationals all voted against it. That's because our system of honours and awards simply isn't broken. The government has not made the case. It isn't broken.”
“I did pause just for a moment to check whether any members opposite were keen to join in the consideration in detail, but I couldn't see anyone on their feet. I will yield if anyone from the other side wants to speak. I'm quite happy to yield. It is clearly not going to be a situation we have to worry about here this evening, because, again, they're missing in action. The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 came before the House last Thursday and was debated today, with one speaker from those opposite. But, on this side of the House, including on the crossbench, every speaker has been asking the same question of the minister and the Prime Minister: what is the actual problem the Albanese government is trying to fix with this flawed legislation? What is the actual problem?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(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.”
“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.”
“Veterans and historians should have the opportunity to make submissions and flesh out all of the relevant issues regarding the reviewable time limit of 20 years, a limitation which would prevent significant actions in the future being assessed by the tribunal. If the minister won't withdraw this legislation, he should at least have the decency to consult with impacted stakeholders and understand the consequences of this flawed approach. I commend the amendments, and I thank the House.”
“The government claims it is seeking to remedy issues but then gives no detailed explanation in relation to the extent of the alleged issues and which organisation has actually raised any concerns with the government. The minister has not made a coherent case for change, and he possibly misled parliament when he claimed that families could still seek a review. I'd like him to come to the chamber, if that's the case, and correct the record. The coalition supports openness and transparency and believes these proposed changes should be tested in a Senate inquiry, not just inside the vested interests of the defence department.”
“It would have been impossible under the legislation before the House today because it would not have been a reviewable decision. While Defence claim its opposition stems from the view that military acts are best assessed at the time by the relevant officers, in this whole debate there's also likely to be an element of some senior officers simply resenting the prospect of having their judgement reviewed by a tribunal at a later date. They don't want an independent tribunal checking their homework. At their heart, these changes are an effort by the government to remove independence from a statutory body which was, as I said, established in 2011 to consider all defence honours and awards matters.”
“Sadly, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has not presented any evidence that the tribunal has been overcome or deluged with referrals following the awarding of medals after the inquiry. It simply hasn't happened. That is despite the critics within the defence establishment often claiming it would open the floodgates whenever a successful review of a gallantry medal is awarded. They constantly claim there's going to be a flood of applicants for medals. It hasn't happened. Defence has always been hostile to this tribunal and the retrospective nature of examining past actions and openly opposed Sheean receiving a VC, a VC which was cheered across the nation, cheered on that side of the House and cheered on this side of the House.”
“We have a part-time parliament, which is debating a bill like this, which no-one in the veterans community has even asked for. On that final point about consultation and the lack of consultation, not even the RSL was asked for a review before the minister made his second reading speech last week. The largest ex-service organisation in the nation was completely blindsided when this bill was introduced last week. The hypocrisy of both the current prime minister and the defence minister—the Deputy Prime Minister, who strongly expressed views during the debate over Teddy Sheean that a posthumous VC should be awarded—has to be called out, because under these changes there would be no pathway to review past actions beyond 20 years, even if compelling new evidence was produced.”
“The Labor Party is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system and limit the rights of our veterans, our Australian Defence Force personnel, their families and other interested parties to question, through their own temerity, the merit of a past decision. This legislation should never have made it into the chamber. I'm assuming the Leader of Government Business ran out of legislation last week, contacted his colleagues and said, 'Has anyone got anything we could put in the House?' This should never have made it into the chamber. It's an example of a government which has run out of puff in just four months, and it is a solution looking for a problem. No wonder there were only eight weeks scheduled between the election and the end of the year.”
“The coalition supports the rights of men and women who serve in uniform and the generations of personnel who have gone before them. Medallic recognition of service, in particular for acts of gallantry and bravery, is an integral part of the Australian Defence Force. Military officers are not infallible. Errors of judgement can be made in relation to recommendations for medallic recognition. The very establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in 2011 provided a statutory agency for an independent review of past actions and decisions. It has to remain independent.”
“The tribunal found that the VC for Wheatley was a completely separate action and the other events in May and August 1965 warranted further recognition. Justice was done decades after the action occurred. I'm not surprised that the speaking list for this bill is a little bit light on from the other side. I'd be embarrassed to come in here as well if I were a member of the Labor Party trying to justify this ridiculous legislation. On this side of the House, we understand the importance of the Australian Defence Force. We understand the need to ensure we can recruit some of the best and brightest young Australians to serve in our Navy, in our Army and in our Air Force. We want them to train well, to serve well, to transition well and also, where appropriate, to be suitably acknowledged for their service to our nation.”
“In the Wheatley case, it was claimed there had been a lack of recognition for two separate actions by Wheatley in May and August of 1965. Keep in mind that Wheatley had been awarded a VC for actions later in the same year—actions which occurred in November. Defence tried to claim the VC was for cumulative actions in what was described as a uniquely imaginative approach to the issue. But, after exhaustive analysis, the tribunal found that Wheatley should also be posthumously awarded a medal for gallantry for his two other actions in the same year. This was a simple case of maladministration. There was no new evidence required. No additional witnesses were required. Under this legislation, this case would never have been reviewed by the tribunal.”
“The minister has swallowed the story that Defence is infallible and there's no need for the tribunal to have the capacity to review decisions dating back further than 20 years, because it's all a bit too hard. Well, I say it's too important. It's too important to have the capacity to consider past actions beyond 20 years. But we're simply rolling over for Defence because they don't like the tribunal and have never liked the tribunal, because it's sometimes hard to do the research and get the paperwork together. I'm going to give one final practical example, which was the review undertaken by the tribunal into Warrant Officer Kevin Wheatley's actions in the Vietnam War in 1965, 60 years ago. It wouldn't be allowable to have that review under this legislation, but let's look at this case.”
“The most egregious amendment is to strip the tribunal of the capacity to review decisions dating back to World War II, which obviously includes the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Korean War and the Malayan emergency—and every other operation in that time period. Labor wants to limit the reviewable decision period to just 20 years and has provided no explanation whatsoever as to why that is a fair outcome. It also wants to strip ADF members, veterans and their families and everyday Australians of their right to seek a review of a Defence decision. Under these changes, make no mistake, veterans' advocates, historians and people with a specific interest in medallic recognition would have no right to seek a review of Defence decisions. I fear the minister has been somewhat hoodwinked by the defence department.”
“From my reading of the legislation, it is abundantly clear that families have no right whatsoever to seek a review of an honour decision that is being denied by Defence. I must confess, in many ways, I was pretty surprised—if not actually stunned—when the minister rose to make his second reading speech on this issue last week. We had no warning. We had no idea that he was heading down this pathway. There'd been no consultation with key agencies. So I say, again, in summing-up, this legislation is an example of a government that has run out of puff in just four months and is a solution looking for a problem. There has been no consultation with veterans groups, and the bill proposes to amend the Defence Act to such a degree that the tribunal's operations would be, effectively, muzzled.”
“In relation to the plan to abolish the rights of veterans and families to seek an independent review of Defence decisions, can the minister confirm that he misled the chamber when he said, 'If the family themselves wish to have the matter reviewed, that should and will remain open to them'? That statement's not true. If the minister has misled the chamber, he needs to come in here and correct the record. It's not true, Deputy Speaker Young. The families can't seek a review under this legislation. Minister, if you've misled the chamber, come back and correct the record. It could be an honest mistake. It could have been a drafting error in the speech. He could have misspoken. I don't know.”
“In the interests of transparency, prior to the election, why didn't the Prime Minister tell veterans and their families from World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and numerous other conflicts that he intended to remove their right to appeal Defence decisions regarding honours and awards? On 18 June 2020 the Prime Minister told the House that the point of having an independent defence honours and appeals tribunal was to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. Prime Minister, can you explain why this government is seeking to reduce the scope of this tribunal, this independent statutory body, and block veterans and their families from seeking review of Defence honours? Finally, I have a question for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.”
“Maybe the Prime Minister could also confirm that soldiers who fought in the Battle of Long Tan would never have received additional medallic recognition for their bravery under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago? Maybe the minister or the Prime Minister could walk in here and answer this question: on whose advice did the government decide to ban the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago, and why wasn't the position tested with a full consultation process involving the affected parties?”
“Specifically, I'd like to ask the Prime Minister: why is the government ignoring the advice of an independent statutory agency and taking the rights of appeal away from veterans and their families? I'd also like to ask: can the Prime Minister confirm that Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean would never have received a Victoria Cross under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that Private Richard Norden would never have received a Victoria Cross under his government's legislation, which bans the tribunal from reviewing actions that occurred more than 20 years ago?”
“But now it's found a minister willing to just roll over and do its bidding at the expense of transparency and accountability. This deeply flawed legislation raises more questions than it answers—without proper consultation, there are just so many unanswered questions in relation to this bill. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal told a Senate inquiry that introducing a 20-year time limit for a tribunal review would: … 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 refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award.”
“It's been publicly reported that Campbell wrote to the Prime Minister advising against a VC for Sheean, despite the tribunal recommending the recognition. For the record, the former chief of the defence force also advised me that he didn't support Sheean receiving a VC. I had an outstanding working relationship with the former CDF and I respect him greatly, but we had to agree to disagree on this point. In relation to the tribunal, he briefed against Sheean receiving a VC, and I campaigned for it and I supported the tribunal's findings. Defence just hates the fact that a tribunal exists to review its decisions. It hates the fact that actions from previous conflicts can be reassessed, and it hates the fact that any person may apply for a review.”
“Again, under these changes, the Labor Party would never have been able to deliver medallic recognition for Teddy Sheean and his family, because the tribunal would have been prevented from reviewing the decision made by Defence in the first place. We need to be very clear about this. The changes proposed today have been drafted by Defence. They are being driven by Defence, and the interests of veterans and the tribunal itself are secondary to those of this government, this minister and this prime minister. If the House needs any proof that Defence never wants this tribunal correcting its homework, the approach of the former chief of the defence force Angus Campbell in relation to the Sheean VC case is compelling.”
“In all of these cases, Defence opposed any changes to the medallic recognition of the individuals involved. Under the Albanese government's proposed changes that I've just described, none of these celebrated Australian servicepeople would have achieved the justice they deserved, as, again, their actions fall outside the 20-year time limit that would be imposed by this bill. There's a fair bit of hypocrisy in this place, and this bill is right up there in it. In opposition, Labor were very happy to play politics with the Sheean case and they publicly demanded a VC for his heroic actions after the tribunal made its recommendations. The then opposition leader and now prime minister, Anthony Albanese, led the charge. So it's quite hypocritical of them when you consider the impact of the changes that his cabinet has put before the House today.”
“Eighteen Australians were killed, and more were wounded, but for half a century many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for that recognition. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the action that 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery. The reason I raise those three cases as examples is that, under this legislation before the House today, those men never would have received the bravery medals they were rightfully due, because this government wants to place an unrealistic and unfair time limit on the review of honours and awards. The cases would not have been able to be assessed by the tribunal, because they occurred outside the 20-year time limit that this government is seeking to impose on Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families.”
“Private Norden showed a complete disregard for his own personal safety, and his courage and selfless acts resulted in the enemy position being secured and likely saved the lives of other members of the platoon. Again, another extraordinary Australian has been recognised for his actions. Then there's the celebrated outcome for Delta Company after a long—when we're talking 'long', we're talking decades—battle for recognition by company commander Harry Smith, recognition that would not have been possible without the tribunal's involvement. On 18 August 1966, members of D Company, who were outnumbered 20 to one, fought against the odds to defeat the enemy at Long Tan.”
“Within his citation, it was said: Private Norden killed one North Vietnamese Army soldier whilst moving forward and, having expended his ammunition, recovered that enemy's automatic weapon which he used against further North Vietnamese Army soldiers. He then half-carried, half-dragged the severely wounded Section Commander back to the section. Private Norden, seriously wounded, again advanced to the forward scout. He pressed forward under enemy fire and reached the scout, killing the North Vietnamese Army soldier who had been using the scout as a shield. Having determined that the scout was dead, Private Norden returned to the section to collect grenades and moved forward for a third time. He cleared the area to enable the body of the scout to be recovered.”
“Let's take the example of Teddy Sheean, the first naval servicemen to receive a VC, and, to quote from the citation regarding his actions in December 1942, it said: Ordinary Seaman Sheean's actions disrupted and distracted the enemy from strafing and killing his defenceless shipmates in the water. He sacrificed his life trying to save his shipmates and, despite his wounds, he continued firing the gun until the ship sank and took him to his death. His pre-eminent act of valour and most conspicuous gallantry saved Australian lives. His heroism became the standard to which the men and women of the Australian Defence Force aspire. An amazing, amazing Australian. Then we have Private Richard Norden, whose gallant actions occurred in May 1968.”
“Throughout the past 14 years, the tribunal undertook 483 reviews, and, on 283 occasions, it upheld the decision made by Defence. But, on 136 occasions, it put forward recommendations to change the decision of Defence. It seems to me like the tribunal is working. Importantly, the tribunal's recommendations are a matter for the minister of the day to then consider. Deputy Speaker Young, I know you are someone who takes a great deal of interest in the recognition of our service men and women. There have been several particularly high-profile cases which have warranted careful consideration by the tribunal as reviewable decisions.”
“It will add to the existing distrust between some veterans and Defence, and it actually undermines the integrity of a statutory agency which, I repeat, the Labor Party established in 2011. On that point: for those who are not familiar with this particular tribunal, it was formed by the Gillard Labor government in 2011, with a capacity to review decisions regarding honours and awards. It can also be directed by the minister of the day to undertake inquiries on his or her behalf. As a statutory agency, it was intended to act independently of government. That is the critical point. It is meant to be independent of government, and it has the capacity to review decisions dating back to 1939, which obviously coincides with the start of World War II.”
“He would have realised in about a minute that he had been sold a pup by the Department of Defence. Defence initiated this legislation. Defence wrote the legislation. Defence has finally found a minister compliant enough to bring it to the chamber, and here we are today, debating a bill that should never have seen the light of day, particularly in the aftermath of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It is staggering that this government is taking action which actually disenfranchises serving men and women at this most sensitive of times. They're actually disenfranchising serving men and women and our veterans' community. This is worse than a solution looking for a problem; this legislation will actually create problems.”
“Evidence to the Senate inquiry showed support for and confidence in the work of the tribunal, and, again, I quote the report, which said: Overwhelmingly, inquiry participants valued the independent nature of the tribunal, its impartiality and its considered approach when handling review applications. Despite the lack of evidence that the tribunal's current standing rules have been abused by the public, the Albanese government is acting to totally abolish the current rights of ADF members, veterans and their families through this bill. They are taking away the right of Australians to register legitimate appeals against the refusal of a defence honour. What concerns me the most is, if the minister had a single ounce of decency, he would have undertaken a proper consultation process.”
“It actually seeks to curtail the rights of Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families simply because Defence doesn't like this tribunal. Defence gave evidence at the same Senate inquiry and recommended changes to the tribunal, and the minister has blindly followed that advice. Again, it is contrary to the evidence given at the inquiry, which stated the establishment of the tribunal to consider unsuccessful awards and honours nominations was a unique feature of the Australian system and provided an additional level of accountability.”
“In relation to Defence's proposal to introduce a 20-year time limit for tribunal reviews, the tribunal actually expressed its strong opposition to and significant concerns for that proposal. The tribunal went on to explain that it would render invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by the tribunal between 2020 and 2023 and said in its submission: … if implemented, would be to 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 refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award. This is the crux of the coalition's opposition to the bill before the House today.”
“It's not like this tribunal have been handing out medals without giving due consideration to the many complex issues that they have encountered over the years. In his second reading speech, the minister claims: … it is necessary to ensure that the tribunal remains fit for purpose and to address a number of concerns that have been raised by the tribunal itself— and then proceeds to give absolutely no examples of any concerns raised by the tribunal itself. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The tribunal actually gave evidence to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system that it was strongly opposed to the key change proposed in this legislation before the chamber today.”