Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025

Dr HAINES (Indi) (13:03): I rise today to speak on Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. I acknowledge that the minister is in the House today, and I want to say to him that I appreciated the briefing we had the other night, but I must admit that, when I went away and had a closer look at this bill and had a ring around my electorate, I came to the conclusion that I needed to jump up and speak on this today.

This bill amends key features of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal was established to provide an independent and fair review of defence honours and awards decisions. It exists as an independent statutory body and has finalised 465 reviews since its commencement in 2008.

I have several concerns with this bill, which have come to light to me over the past 48 hours or less, and I'll briefly outline them. This bill has been rushed through the House with consultation, with veterans, that seems very light. In fact, veterans in my electorate of Indi tell me that they're blindsided by this.

There's apparently been little or no consultation with them or their representative bodies and no scrutiny by a committee of parliament. I've been speaking to veteran leaders in my electorate and, really, they didn't know what I was talking about when I rang them. They didn't know this bill was coming.

They're concerned about the impact. They're concerned, particularly, about the impact on their membership. It begs the question: if they didn't know it was coming, if they had no sense of this, what consultations really occurred?

I've spoken with RSL Victoria who, likewise, feel blindsided that this bill's being rushed through without the voices of veterans truly being heard. They tell me that they can't see why this bill is really a priority when there are still so many outstanding recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. They're completely bewildered.

This bill limits who can apply for review of decisions in relation to defence awards and honours. Firstly, it imposes a 20-year time limit on reviews, which would exclude entire generations of veterans. We've heard, from contributions this morning, that we're not talking about veterans from the Boer War, we're talking about veterans who are still active members of our community from recent wars.

We've heard too, from many contributions this morning, that this bill would mean that the recent Victoria Cross recipient Teddy Sheean would have been ineligible. I was in this House when there were contributions from many members of parliament lauding the Victoria Cross award going to the extraordinary Teddy Sheean. In fact, the Prime Minister himself said: 'It's never too late to honour the meaning of "Lest we forget" or to commemorate the courage of one of our own.' That's what he said about Teddy Sheean.

Now this government's bill means that it will be too late to recognise heroes like Teddy Sheean. If it goes through, it will be too late. Secondly, it narrows who can apply for a review, shutting out advocates and supporters who, so often, stand in for veterans who are too physically or mentally unwell to fight these battles themselves.

They've fought battles, but this one—arguing for an honour or award—is a battle too far to go. Thirdly, it introduces a six-month deadline to seek review, knowing full well that many veterans are never even told that they have that right. Indeed, they may be dealing with mental or physical health issues that limit their ability to respond in a timely fashion.

These aren't minor or technical changes, they are significant. They significantly reduce the ability of veterans, their families and advocates to seek review for decisions made by Defence. I listened carefully to the speeches of both the minister and the shadow minister this morning and they made a big impact on me, particularly listening to the shadow minister, the member for Gippsland, and his experiences when it came to seeking the award for Teddy Sheean and, finally, having it approved.

It was compelling. But at least he could do it—he could not do it under this legislation. Mr Gosling: We had the fortune to do it.

Dr HAINES: I think it's good to have an interjection from the government benches, because I don't see too many members of the government lining up. There's been one speaker. That's a big indicator to me as a crossbencher, to be truthful.

When there's a government bill introduced and there is nobody on the government side willing to stand up and speak to it—it's a dead giveaway, actually. The government says that this bill will protect the integrity of the defence honours and awards system, but it actually hasn't laid out why this is even necessary. Where is the compelling case?

The tribunal itself has not asked for change. Its case load has not meaningfully changed in recent years. The tribunal receives approximately 30 requests for review each year.

This is hardly overwhelming. They haven't sought to have a problem remedied because there has been no problem identified. When I assess legislation in this place, that's the very first question I ask: what's the problem that we're trying to solve here?

Why are we creating a new law—or amending another one—and coming into the parliament to seek to solve a problem when there is no problem that has been clearly identified here? In relation to this bill, the government, I'm sorry to say—and I mean this genuinely, actually—just hasn't laid out a compelling case for reform. The tribunal, as I said, has not asked for these reforms.

And, certainly, the veterans and their advocacy groups have not asked for reform. When I'm looking at legislation, I also ask the next question, which is: if there is a problem—and here we can't see that there truly is one, but if there were one—are the proposed changes ethical and do they represent good governance? On this measure, again, I'm completely unconvinced because this bill will result in less agency for veterans and their families to seek review of decisions made by the Department of Defence.

In what world do we, as parliamentarians, seek to reduce the amount of agency that our veterans have, when we've seen so many examples of the implications of reduced agency on veterans' mental and physical health? I'm really perplexed by this. As I said, RSL groups in my electorate have really deep concerns about what this would mean and were absolutely blindsided that this was even being debated in the House today.

These are the kinds of bills I take to my constituents to ask them their views of. Well, it's pretty hard to ask them at this late stage. Many members over on this side—in the middle and on the crossbench—have talked about how important it is that we respect and that we honour our veterans.

They've talked about what it means every time we stand beside them at significant national events like Anzac Day, like Remembrance Day and, in fact, only recently Vietnam Veterans' Day. They've talked about the pride with which our veterans carry their medals and awards; the pride with which their families stand beside them; and, in fact, the humility that those of us who have not served have when we see our veterans on these significant national days—let alone when they are actually representing our country, abroad, at wartime.

I want to say that I support the member for Gippsland's amendments to this legislation again. He's come into the parliament with some solutions, with amendments that I think are significant and would make a big difference, and I support those. But, as I stand before you right now, with an unclear case for change—and, I think, very likely negative impacts for veterans in my electorate of Indi and right across Australia—I simply cannot support this bill in its current form.