Shadow Portfolio — 13 May 2026

Phillip Thompson's parliamentary activity on 13 May 2026 covered two distinct but thematically connected fronts: military justice reform and a sharp budget attack that concentrated on veterans and cost-of-living pressures. Across both interventions, the coalition's positioning was defensive of service personnel and critical of government fiscal choices that Thompson argued fall hardest on aspirational Australians and those who have served.

On the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, Thompson announced the coalition will not oppose the legislation [TA-260513-house-ee1b85aea947:s008]. He confirmed the bill enacts five specific recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide — recommendations 18, 20, 23, 34 and 63 — and walked through each substantive change [TA-260513-house-ee1b85aea947:s008].

The reforms include a new suspension power for members under civilian investigation (addressing the problem of alleged victims working alongside alleged perpetrators during proceedings), the introduction of victim-impact considerations in sexual-offence tribunals, removal of stigmatising language including the term "malingering," and a requirement for superior tribunals to provide written reasons for convictions.

Thompson also described the creation of a Defence mental health tribunal and diversionary measures enabling tribunals to adjourn or dismiss charges where an accused person suffers a mental impairment [TA-260513-house-ee1b85aea947:s008]. The coalition frames this package as delivering on the Royal Commission's mandate through comprehensive military justice reform aimed at improving transparency, accountability and personnel welfare.

One dissenting note: Thompson raised a specific concern about a provision authorising Defence Force police to carry tasers, questioning whether that equipment might be used against enlisted soldiers rather than confined to civilian policing contexts.

Later in the day, Thompson used the matter of public importance debate to mount a broad budget attack [TA-260513-house-ee1b85aea947:s056]. He characterised the budget as "un-Australian," arguing it treats aspiration as a problem to be taxed away rather than a value to be rewarded, and noted an absence of any infrastructure commitment. His economic critique centred on what he described as billions of dollars in new taxes landing on investors, small businesses, superannuation and housing — with downstream consequences for home construction, business hiring and household costs.

The veterans dimension of that budget attack directly links Thompson's two interventions on the day: he singled out a $5,000 cap on allied health services for veterans and the defunding of Invictus Australia, calling those reductions "shameful" and calling for the funding to be restored.

The coherence of Thompson's day lies in the combination: bipartisan support for the military justice bill signals constructive engagement with the Royal Commission's legacy, while the MPI attack positions the coalition as the defender of veterans and aspirational Australians against a budget the opposition argues cuts the wrong things and taxes the right ones.