QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Mr KEOGH (Burt—Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel) (14:54): I thank the member for his question because it provides me with a great opportunity to provide him and the House with some clarifications on the matters that he has raised. I'm grateful for that opportunity because I've seen, over the course of the last few days, his blood pressure really rise and his anxiety level really rise, which might be of concern for members of our House about the member for Gippsland, but what I'm more concerned with is the way in which he has conducted his opposition— Mr Chester: Name one person that supports it.
The SPEAKER: Order! It doesn't work that way. The member for Gippsland has asked a question.
The minister is answering. We've got to respect each other here, so no more interjections from the member for Gippsland. I can hear you—trust me.
I'll give the call to the minister, now, to answer and return to the question. Mr KEOGH: What's concerned me is the way in which the member for Gippsland has engaged in debate on this bill, creating anxiety, uncertainty and a lack of clarity across the veteran community with respect to what this legislation is about. What I have encountered, as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, are concerns that have been raised by the Defence honours and awards tribunal about the difficulty that it has confronted over many years, over different chairpersons of that tribunal, in dealing with long, historical cases in front of it and making sure that it is able to remain relevant in the work that it does to ensure that our veterans and our serving personnel can have decisions made by Defence properly reviewed.
I think people understand—and I know, from my engagement with the veteran community around this bill and around many issues surrounding medals, that they want to ensure that those decisions can be properly based in evidence, which is why we have many reviews of these matters, and that we see the integrity in the way in which that system operates. That's what these amendments are designed to achieve.
What is particularly troubling, though, is the way in which the member opposite, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, given he is a former minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel and should know better, has tried to suggest that these amendments would remove the capacity to award honours to serving— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Yes, the member for Wannon is pushing it here.
The minister was asked a direct question about the legislation. He's talking about the legislation. He's talking about the criticism of the legislation.
It is going to be very difficult—I think everyone here has heard what the minister is saying—for you to raise a point of order on relevance. We just can't have people jumping up and taking points because they don't like the answer. The member for Wannon on a point of order?
Mr Tehan: On relevance—the question was about the comments by the New South Wales RSL. The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Member for Wannon, you've got to stop doing this.
The question was about evidence given to the Senate committee about the bill. The minister is talking about the bill. Listen carefully.
He is talking about the bill. He's talking about the components about the bill. I'm making notes about what he's saying.
That's an abuse of the standing orders, and you continually do it. If he were talking about another bill, if he were talking about another piece of legislation, he wouldn't be relevant. But, when you're talking about the question that you're asked, the standing orders are written in such a way—I don't want this to continue, so that's the last time you're going to make a frivolous point of order.
The minister is being absolutely relevant, and I want to make sure he continues not about the opposition but about the bill. Mr KEOGH: One of the concerns that have been raised about the bill is the suggestion that people who have been awarded honours previously, with the changes that we have made, would not have been able to be awarded those honours, and the person so often cited is Teddy Sheean.
The thing that needs to be remembered, especially by those opposite—Teddy Sheean was a very deserved awardee of the Victoria Cross for Australia. When the tribunal recommended that decision, the government—those opposite—didn't follow that recommendation. They had a whole separate process to deal with that, because of the pressure on this side of the House and because of the pressure from the veteran community.
It is that sort of disinformation that is causing anxiety in the veteran community, and, as former minister, the member opposite should know better.