Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (18:06): 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.

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.

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. 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. '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. 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. 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.