Matt Keogh
Burt · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“I thank the member for the question. Clearly, as we've articulated, the purpose of the cap is to replace the current treatment cycle system where veterans are going back time and time again to a GP after every 12 referrals in order to access allied health services.”
“The proposal you're making would make the entire system a nullity, which is not what we want to do. We're actually trying to provide better outcomes for our veterans in overall wellbeing.”
“We're working to make sure defence and DVA systems are contemporary and fit for purpose and that those systems have the wellbeing of our people at the forefront.”
“We can better support them through the reforms in this bill—through improved information sharing and better integration across defence, DVA and other portfolio agencies, including the newly established, from today, Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency; through establishing more robust frameworks for defence health services by enhancing fam…”
“I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. This bill reflects the Albanese government's ongoing commitment to responding to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.”
“This bill directly implements 15 recommendations of the royal commission and supports the implementation of a further 20 recommendations focused on improving health and wellbeing outcomes, improving suicide prevention and information sharing, supporting defence families, enhancing transition, continuity of care and modernising governance…”
The complete record
Every one of 327 lines we hold for Matt Keogh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“The other restraint is to put a stop to the increasing number of people, like historians and academics, that we are seeing seeking reviews when they have no connection to the relevant events in question. I was clear on that in the second reading speech. These are the nature of the restrictions. I did not any way mislead in my second reading speech.”
“That is still left open. The other key issue that arises is this anathema that exists in the current legislation, which is the concept that an honour could be applied for by a person who is seeking the honour for themselves. That is the devil that the restriction on who can seek review is seeking to address. It restricts it to somebody who was in some way involved in the action—in commanding it or witnessing it. But it also recognises that a person may not wish to have such an honour bestowed on them, and that is why, even if a witness or someone in command seeks a review, they also need to have the permission or consent of the person or, where they are no longer alive, their family.”
“Veterans and those in Defence are also concerned that the tribunal looking back that far means it could apply a 21st-century standard and approaches to conflicts that occurred more than half a century ago. It also gives rise to a degree of unfairness, where somebody can seek review through the tribunal and the outcome that is received by two different defence personnel will be based not on what actually occurred and the conduct but on the vagaries of what records may or may not exist now, where there are no living witnesses to provide evidence. Some have also sought, I might add, to close the rolls on these conflicts—to rule a line under them, just as occurs in the United Kingdom—so that no other honours and awards could ever be awarded in respect of those conflicts. This legislation and this government do not propose to do that.”
“It's not 20 years from now; it's 20 years from the end of the relevant exercise, which means, for people who were participating in the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan, it doesn't exclude the beginning of those operations, because it's 20 years from the end of those operations. That does provide quite a lot of time, and I understand that people may take different views on how long that period should be. That'll no doubt be something considered by a Senate committee. But that is not a reason—and no reasons have been given—to not seek to constrain the time period that the tribunal looks at from its current jurisdiction all the way back to 1939. As I said before, the tribunal itself identified the problems with looking at conflicts all the way back to 1939.”
“When the government received the recommendation from the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal that he be awarded a VC for Australia, the government acted on that recommendation from the tribunal and proceeded with that VC. A key issue here is that nothing that this bill does stops anyone from applying to Defence for a defence honour or award; it goes to what the tribunal does. The tribunal asked government. The tribunal has said, in its own decisions, that the time period that it currently covers—from 1939—and the evidential issues that arise in looking back at conduct that occurred that long ago cause it significant concern and difficulty. This bill proposes that that be constricted by a 20-year limit from the end of the relevant operations. This is something that's also being misconstrued by the opposition.”
“The comments were made by the now prime minister after the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal had recommended the awarding of a VC for Australia to Teddy Sheean when the then prime minister had refused to act on that recommendation and had instead instituted a wholly separate and different inquiry into the recommendation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. That is what undermines the independence and operation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. That is why the Prime Minister was calling for that, and it's this independence that we are in no way undermining. It stands in quite big distinction to the case of another recent VC recipient that the opposition have been referring to, Private Norden.”
“And, of course, there will be more opportunity for input from all interested parties, including the opposition, the RSL, any other ex-service organisations, veterans and any others, through other parliamentary processes that will occur in the passage of this bill through the parliament. I also want to make one particularly important reference to the fact that the opposition has made a lot out of quoting statements made by the now prime minister with respect to the VC awarded to Teddy Sheean. What's important to recognise is the context in which those comments were made.”
“The bill still leaves open all the avenues for a minister to refer to the tribunal an inquiry into any matter, regardless of the timing, that may relate to defence honours or awards. It doesn't in any way affect the independence of the tribunal. In fact, if anything, it provides enhancements to the independence of the tribunal. Ex-service organisations were consulted when it came to these amendments, and the RSL was involved in those discussions. In addition to that, the nature of the amendments brought forward in this bill was actually outlined in a Senate inquiry at the end of last year.”
“It is interesting that the shadow minister for veterans' affairs is the one leading this debate, not the shadow minister with actual portfolio responsibility in this House: the shadow minister for defence. It is important to remember that Australia is the only Commonwealth country that even has a tribunal of this nature. The question here before the House, in dealing with this legislation, is not about what has occurred previously with recommendations that might have been dealt with differently if these amendments had been in place earlier; there was never any intention that these amendments would be in place earlier. These amendments are about how the tribunal operates into the future—and only into the future. That is important to remember. The opposition seems to be deliberately misconstruing what this bill does.”
“I know, as a minister for defence personnel—admittedly, for a period some 20 days shorter than the shadow minister's, so far—that I take that role incredibly seriously, especially when it comes to approving recommendations to be made for defence honours, whether they are in their initial form or it's when they are coming to me from Defence—when Defence has conducted a review upon an application—or when they come to me from the honours and awards tribunal, having reviewed a decision from Defence. These are serious and important matters. So it does concern me that the shadow minister says that he has not received a briefing when, this week, his office did receive a briefing.”
“I'd like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. I'd especially like to commend the member for Sturt, the member for Wentworth and the member for Indi for the very considered remarks that they provided. I have been concerned, however, by what has frankly been a bit of a hyperbolic reaction by the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, given his prior role as the then minister for defence personnel.”
“Rather, this bill will provide for the continuation of a proud tradition of recognising Australian Defence Force members for their service as a prerogative of the Crown, while ensuring refusals are transparent and justifiable before an independent tribunal. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned.”
“The bill will prevent reviews being undertaken when the member or their family have no involvement or awareness of the application. The bill will protect the integrity of the defence honours and awards system by removing the risks of decisions being made when it is difficult, if not impossible, to refer to proper documentation or speak with decision-makers of the day. The amendments are reasonable, appropriate, and ensure that the tribunal is focused on reviewing decisions about contemporary actions, with modern functions that are fit for purpose. Importantly, the amendments proposed as part of this bill do not prevent the government issuing recognition to the tens of thousands of ADF members that are recognised annually. Nor does the bill prevent Defence itself from reviewing or upgrading honours or awards.”
“Recommendation 6 of the committee's report recommended that Defence and the tribunal work together to undertake a review of part VIIIC of the Defence Act 1903to improve the tribunal's review and inquiry functions, whilst ensuring that the tribunal continued to operate independently. The tribunal was consulted throughout the development of the bill, and, while not all of its specific recommendations have been adopted, its input has been invaluable in shaping the legislation, which seeks to largely achieve the same aims as the tribunal's recommendations. These amendments will maintain the independent review process but will focus the tribunal on reviewing contemporary matters where objective evidence and living witnesses can contribute to the review process, instead of historical matters.”
“The application and savings provisions of the bill generally provide for the current law to continue to apply where the original application to Defence is made before the commencement of the bill. Those who apply to Defence after the commencement of the bill and then seek a review of that decision will be dealt with under the new law as amended by this bill. Recently, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee held an inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system and made several recommendations to government for consideration. I would like to thank the committee for their time and consideration on this matter.”
“This measure represents a way to address certain proposals raised by the tribunal during consultation. The intent is for regulations to be made to support the tribunal with administrative matters that would better enable the tribunal to deal with applications made to it. The chair of the tribunal must be consulted before any regulations are made that affect the practice, procedure or operation of the tribunal. Importantly—and acknowledging the independence of the tribunal's decision-making—the bill also provides that the regulations must not direct the tribunal or tribunal members in relation to the performance or exercise of the tribunal's or members' functions or powers. The bill will commence on proclamation, or six months from royal assent.”
“The intent of this amendment is to correct this anomalous situation by ensuring that a decision regarding a previously cancelled defence honour, defence award or foreign award is not a reviewable decision. A cancellation decision is given high levels of scrutiny, often relates to serious misconduct and is made by the Crown or their representative. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for such decisions to be reviewable. To ensure transparency, the bill will also require the tribunal to prepare an annual report for tabling in parliament. The tribunal already voluntarily prepares an annual report, so this measure formalises the current practice. The bill also enables regulations to provide for the conduct of reviews of reviewable decisions or inquiries conducted by the tribunal.”
“In order to avoid a loop of Defence decisions, followed by tribunal reviews, further Defence decisions and further tribunal reviews, the bill also removes the ability for the tribunal to refer a decision regarding a defence award or foreign award back to Defence. However, the tribunal retains the power to either affirm the original decision or set it aside and replace it with a new decision. The bill also clarifies that a decision regarding a previously cancelled defence honour, defence award or foreign award is not reviewable by the tribunal. A cancellation decision is already not reviewable under the Defence Act 1903 . However, under the current framework, a subsequent application relating to a previous cancellation decision is considered a reviewable decision.”
“This means a review by the tribunal could be sought now for a decision to refuse a defence honour or award that was made sometime last century. The bill creates a six-month time limit to seek such a review. The six-month timeframe is significantly longer than the usual period for seeking a review of a government decision by a tribunal. This is appropriate as it takes into account that there could be a range of reasons why a person might need more time to prepare for and seek such a review. The tribunal will also be able to accept applications for review beyond this timeframe in exceptional circumstances—for example, if an applicant has a serious health condition.”
“An individual will not be permitted to seek a review in relation to a defence honour for themselves. Amendment to focus review function of t ribunal The bill amends the functions of the tribunal so that its recommendations to government regarding a defence honour are focused on eligibility for the honour rather than making broader recommendations regarding the honours and awards system, which is properly the scope of the tribunal if conducting an inquiry, or recommendations concerning other aspects of service or government decisions that are not relevant to the question of eligibility per se. Amendments to modernise operations of the t ribunal Currently, there is no time limit on when a review by the tribunal can be sought after a refusal decision has been made by Defence.”
“However, if the family themselves wish to have the matter reviewed, that should and will remain open to them. For a defence award and foreign award, the bill provides for a suitably broad range of potential applicants. This includes the affected person, their immediate family member, or, if the member is deceased, an executor, administrator, trustee of the estate or other personal representative of the affected person. For a defence honour, given the discretionary nature of such medals, only an ADF member that is, or was, more senior in the chain of command, or an ADF member or veteran who was an eyewitness to the action or service, may apply for a review, provided they have the consent of the member under consideration or their immediate family.”
“Amendment to who can seek a review by the t ribunal The bill also amends who can make an application to the tribunal for a review. Currently, anyone that made an original application to Defence can seek a review of that decision and there is no restriction on who can make such applications to Defence in the first place. With increasing frequency, applications are being made to Defence for the issuing of a defence honour or award or for the upgrading of a defence honour by academics and amateur historians with no connection to the member or their family. Such applications, subsequent refusals and resultant tribunal hearings can serve to create unnecessary angst and concern with family members of a deceased Defence member, long since passed away, for no objective benefit.”
“These are awards that recognise a member's length of service with the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The bill provides that a refusal decision relating to a length of service award will be reviewable up until the member has, or would have, turned 100 years old. This is an appropriate and inclusive measure and ensures that current and former serving personnel, their families, and other personal representatives can continue to seek a review of decisions relating to length of service awards for a significant period of time, even after the death of the relevant Defence member, without being entirely open ended. To provide flexibility and to ensure the framework remains fit for purpose, the bill will enable regulations to shorten these 20-year and 100-year threshold periods in the future if required.”
“Where the Defence decision to decline a defence honour or award relates to an operation that does not have an end date or is not operational in nature, the relevant service said to be relevant for such an honour or award must have been within the last 20 years of an application having been made to Defence. This gives an applicant a reasonable period of time to apply for a defence honour, operational service award or foreign award, and to seek a review of any refusal decision. This means if a member served on an operation that ended in 2021, and had sought a decision from Defence regarding an honour or award regarding service in that operation by 2041, they would be able to seek a review of a refusal decision by the tribunal. The exception to the 20-year period is for length of service awards.”
“There has also been an 'end of roll' process, or similar, undertaken after the conclusion of such major 20th century conflicts by Australian defence authorities. In order to avoid the tribunal being put in a position where it is having to review Defence decisions where it is having to rely on very imperfect evidence, the bill amends the time period that the tribunal can review in three ways depending on the nature of the honour or award and the nature of the operation that the relevant Defence member was participating in. Going forward, the tribunal will only be able to review a Defence decision to decline a defence honour, operational service award or foreign award if the application to Defence for the medal was made within 20 years of the relevant operation ending.”
“Amendments to update time period t ribunal can review Currently, a person can seek a review of a defence honour and award by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal when they are dissatisfied with a decision regarding a defence honour, defence award or foreign award concerning conduct or service dating all the way back to the commencement of our involvement in the Second World War—3 September 1939—a time when our Defence Force members were only actually eligible for imperial awards. The difficulties of making assessments regarding defence honours and awards for historical actions are considerable, given the senior members of the time are often sadly no longer with us and therefore objective evidence is difficult to obtain and verify. This is the case with nearly all 20th century conflicts that Australia has been involved in.”
“However, to assist the tribunal in their review function, this bill amends the jurisdiction of the tribunal as set out in the Defence Act 1903in a number of important ways: by updating the time period for which the tribunal can review medallic recognition, by limiting who is able to seek a review of Defence decisions to those with a clear interest in such medallic recognition and by focusing the functions of such a review on eligibility. The amendments also modernise the operations of the tribunal, including in relation to the time allowed to seek a review of a Defence decision. Importantly, the bill will not remove the tribunal's ability to review refusal decisions relating to defence honours, defence awards or foreign awards. What the bill will do is redefine the relevant time periods in relation to reviewable decisions.”
“For the past 14 years, the tribunal has assisted government to explore 30 unresolved complex issues through its inquiry function and reviewed over 350 individual decisions relating to defence honours, defence awards and foreign awards. Overview of amendments 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. There are no changes made that affect the inquiry function of the tribunal. This function remains as a ministerial directed avenue to explore complex issues within defence honours and awards.”
“A defence award is usually awarded for length of service or a participation in a specific operation or theatre. A foreign award is any foreign award given by any country for which an Australian Defence Force member may be eligible; however, this broad definition creates difficulties where the awarding of the award is not actually within Australia's power. As such, only those foreign awards that are set out in the regulations will be reviewable by the tribunal. The government is committed to continuing this proud tradition to ensure that there is an appropriate avenue of review of Defence decisions when it comes to ADF members and veterans' medallic recognition.”
“A further unique part of the Australian honours system was the establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in Australia in 2011 by the Gillard government, the only tribunal to independently review decisions made within Defence in relation to defence honours and awards. The tribunal has two important functions. The first is a review function, whereby individuals are able to apply to the tribunal for review of a decision regarding eligibility for a defence honour, defence award or foreign award. The second is an inquiry function, whereby the government can refer issues to the tribunal for inquiry and recommendation. A defence honour recognises a form of gallant, courageous or distinguished service, often for bravery in warlike or other specific hazardous operations for individuals or units.”
“KEOGH (—) (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 I am pleased to present to the House today the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. Background to the Tribunal Australia established its own national honours system in 1975 under the Whitlam government. Prior to this, Australian Defence Force personnel were only eligible to receive defence honours or awards—medals—under the United Kingdom imperial system. In 1991 the system was updated by the Hawke government, with the introduction of the Victoria Cross for Australia and a number of gallantry decorations, distinguished service decorations and unit citations.”
“Yet, it's those members who were holding up the legislation that would enable us to deliver those support services, just like they're holding up the build-to-rent scheme in the Senate right now. The opposition here has form when it comes to not delivering housing. We are going about delivering housing to support our veterans. We've got the funding going out the door, finally, after delay caused by you, Leader of the Opposition. You caused delay for veteran support in your electorate. If you want to raise it—you were to blame for the delay in that housing being provided.”
“Service provision is expected to roll out, commencing from the beginning of 2026, and we'll see more bricks-and-mortar facilities coming through and being delivered all the way through to 2028. You might say, as we hear often from those opposite: 'Why is it taking so long? That was an election commitment in 2022.' And they would be right to ask that question, especially when you consider that it is the voices of those opposite that cause such delay. I think it's worth drawing to the parliament's attention that we're rolling out veteran housing and support in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition, in the electorate of Flynn and in the electorate of Cowper.”
“It's why, in the lead-up to the 2022 election, as part of our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, we specifically committed $30 million of funding to support housing for veterans as well as those wraparound support services. We are doing that to support veterans all over the country with better wellbeing support through our veterans and families hubs and, of course, through our Veterans' Acute Housing Program, which is going to support up to 78 dwellings to provide crisis and transitional accommodation for our veterans and families. It'll mean we'll see housing rolled out across the Far North Queensland, in southern New South Wales, in the southern suburbs of Perth, in Central Queensland, in the Mid North Coast of New South Wales, in Victoria and all across the country.”
“I thank the member for Bass for her very important question. I know she is concerned to ensure, as I think we all are, that our veterans receive the very best care when they need it and as they deserve. We know that people do better when they have a roof over their head, but we also know that we are in a position to be able to help our veterans get back onto their feet more quickly and get them the support services that they need as well. When people have put on our nation's uniform on our behalf, we have an obligation to make sure that they get that support. Every year, about 6,000 veterans find themselves at risk of homelessness.”
“The winner was Zohal Raoufi, an advocate who has been supporting the Afghan community for over 15 years. In the environment category, we had Alan Dolphin from Free the Hounds; Andrew Batty of the Byford Community Garden; Jane Skoll of Friends of Banyowla Regional Park; Les Jarvis of the Armadale Gosnells Landcare Group; Margaret Middlemas of the Animal Protection Society of WA; and Michelle Hazelwood of the Darling Range Wildlife Shelter. The winner was Alan Wheatley of the Karrakin Black Cockatoo Conservation Centre, who's been volunteering in various roles for over 40 years. Finally, we had Mervyn Wilson of the Western Australian 10th Light Horse Organisation, who received a very special long service award for 24 years as a tireless and passionate volunteer. Thank you to all of our volunteers.”
“The winner was Utsav Thapaliya from the Stories Project, who works to foster harmony among diverse communities and advocates for individuals with disabilities. In the multicultural category, we had Aida Oakdon of the Filipino Australian Health Workers Association and Team Hope; Harry Gill of the Sikh community; Ambika, Jayanthi, Saravanan, Vijayalakshmi and Kanchanadevi of the Valluvan Tamil School; Aryan Malekzadeh of the Afghan Australian Cultural Council; Atul Garg, Eipe Chundamannil and Balli Singh of the Federation of Indian Associations of WA; Father Mehari Tela of the Tigray Holy Trinity Church in Kelmscott; Letty Durkin of the Tigray Orthodox Church in Kenwick; Nasire Koosheshi of the Handelan Iranian Cultural House; and Rajeev Narayanapanicker of the Samskruthi Perth.”
“In the community services category there was Amy Warwick of the Rotary Club of Armadale; Dale Pekel of All Saints Anglican Church of Gosnells; the 'Armidale Train Guy', Kevin Bradney; Dawn Barker of the Good Samaritans WA; Kylee Plummer of the Kelmscott Bulldogs; Lesley Knox of the William Langford Community House; Natalie Crosswell of the Armadale Business Association; Rachel John of Classic Sounds Orchestra; Mark of Halo Care; and Krystelle Wall of the Gosnells Women's Collective. The winners were Kylie and Joel Burns of Feed It Forward, who have been preparing and distributing food hampers for our community for more than five years. In the youth category, we had Jennifer Howe of Team Connect WA; Logan Wolfe of the Gosnells Archers; Sama Raoufi of the local Afghan community; and young leader Suhrab Sadat.”
“In the sports category we had Christine Selwood, Kevin Brophy and Peter Hanna of the Armadale Junior Soccer Club; James Linton of the Kelmscott Junior Football Club; John Peberdy of the Gosnells Archers; Samantha Saffioti and Tony Sheppard of the Roleystone Junior Football Club; Angus Yarran and Kristian Egan of the Kelmscott Bulldogs Football Club; and Georgia Butler of the Kelmscott Baseball Club. The winner was Ric Batista of the Seville Dragons, a club he built from humble beginnings nearly 10 years ago where he's mentored hundreds of athletes.”
“I want to highlight some local legends from the Burt electorate in Perth's south-eastern suburbs. A couple of weeks ago, I was so proud to host the biggest-ever annual Burt Volunteer Awards. Our community is so much kinder, stronger, more vibrant and more connected thanks to the contribution of our volunteers. They really make a difference, and that's why I host these awards every year—to acknowledge the work of our local volunteers, even though they don't do it for the accolades.”
“To that end, I am certainly very happy to meet with the member for Calare and to come out and meet with the Bathurst and Orange RSLs so that I can understand and we can make sure that we are delivering the sorts of wellbeing benefits, services and supports that veterans and families in your area—just as we want across the entire country—get the service and support that they need and deserve. I look forward to coming out to your community to meet with your veteran community as well.”
“The government has already accepted that recommendation, and we've funded DVA to conduct the co-design work with the veteran community to ensure that there is proper consultation across the veteran community with what that wellbeing agency will look like and how it will interface with the veteran and family hub network across Australia to make sure that veterans—no matter where they are located—are able to access the supports they need to have improved wellbeing.”
“It means that we are now in the progress of already having open and rolled out some 17 veterans and families hubs. I really like to emphasise the point that these are hubs to support services for veterans—and families as well. In the final report of the royal commission there were a number of recommendations that went to veteran and family wellbeing—in particular, recommendations going to the ongoing operation of the veterans and families hubs and tying them into the work of one of the other recommendations, which was to establish a specialist wellbeing agency within the Department of Veterans' Affairs.”
“I thank the member for his very important question and very much recognise the place he comes from as an experienced member dealing with veterans' issues as a former minister for veterans' affairs who very much put himself on the line when making sure he was standing up for getting services for veterans. As the member pointed out, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide went to and spoke about the importance of dealing with more holistic wellbeing and care for the veteran community. Certainly, when we went to the 2022 election and made our commitment to rolling out 10 veterans and families hubs across the country, we made sure that we selected locations based on the highest concentration of veterans and families around the country as the priority areas to focus on in rolling out those hubs.”
“For that, we thank him and we recognise his important leadership role not just as a faith leader in the Catholic Church, not just as a head of state on the international stage but as a moral leader across the globe. We acknowledge and we support this condolence motion. May eternal rest be granted to him, O Lord, and the perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.”
“Underlying the principle of the common good is respect for the human person as such, endowed with basic and inalienable rights ordered to his or her integral development. It has also to do with the overall welfare of society and the development of a variety of intermediate groups, applying the principle of subsidiarity. … … … Society as a whole, and the state in particular, are obliged to defend and promote the common good. It is those concepts that I think leave a lot for all of us in this place as we act as representatives of our communities and act in the interest of the nation as a whole; they can provide us with guidance in the work that we do.”
“It is something that I think has led me to why I am a member of the Labor Party. Indeed, it's something that I think we have seen in the impact that he had across the globe, being able to talk to and encourage people across the globe to focus on what we have in common with one another and how acting in the common good is in all of our interests. There is a seminal teaching in the Catholic Church from the late 19th century, Rerum novarum , which is probably the most classic exposition of social justice teaching. Regularly, popes have issued their own, similar encyclicals, and Pope Francis issued his in Laudato si' . In it he said many things, but there is one part I want to place on the record as encapsulating that concept of social justice and our shared humanity and the work that it is incumbent on all of us here. He said: 157.”
“Indeed, one of the things that really set him apart when he became Pope was the way in which he chose to forgo many of the traditional trappings of the office of the Bishop of Rome. It was through that humility and simplicity that he gained not just love but respect from those across the globe—and not just those of the Catholic faith. Pope Francis compelled us, though, to focus on the common good as a central and unifying principle of our social ethics. He had a compassion that embraced all humanity and he urged all of us to see Christ in our neighbour. That focus on the concept of the common good and on social justice, as a Catholic, is something that I have borne with me not just as a core teaching of the Catholic Church but also as a guiding principle in my engagement with politics.”
“It's my honour to be able to take this opportunity to stand in the parliament to formally express on the record my condolences on the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. His passing was something mourned by me, my family, by many of my Catholic brothers and sisters across the world and, indeed, by many non-Catholics as well, recognising the important leadership role globally that Pope Francis provided not just as a faith leader for the many Catholics across the globe but also for his moral leadership in many complex issues confronting people of all backgrounds across the earth. Francis's papacy was one clearly of humility, of progress, of fighting corruption and of a love for those that are less fortunate.”
“We've also appointed the interim commissioner into that role. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has been undertaking the consultation needed on co-design for a new wellbeing agency to be established within the Department of Veterans' Affairs. When we were in opposition we campaigned for the royal commission to be established, and we will work tirelessly now to ensure that the government's response to that royal commission will be implemented so that our nation's veterans continue to receive the supports—and receive even more supports—that they need and deserve.”