Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Thompson criticised the lack of consultation with veterans and argued the bill was a solution looking for a problem. Thompson highlighted that senior officers are not infallible and cited his own combat experience to illustrate the importance of independent review. Thompson warned that the 20-year limit would eventually exclude reviews for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, preventing recognition for bravery in those conflicts.

Wallace argued the bill neutered the tribunal's ability to review decisions and stripped rights from veterans and their families. Wallace noted that families would lose the right to seek reviews, which was problematic given that veterans sometimes cannot manage their own cases. Wallace urged the government to reconsider or at least consult with impacted stakeholders before proceeding.

Wilson questioned the government's priorities, suggesting the bill reflected a desire to reduce accountability and transparency. Wilson argued that the tribunal was essential for correcting errors in medallic recognition, particularly when new information emerged. Wilson planned to consult with local RSL sub-branches and encourage submissions to the Senate inquiry regarding the bill's impact on veterans' recognition.

McCormack expressed strong opposition, citing the recognition of Private Richard Norden and Delta Company as examples of justice achieved through the current system. McCormack argued that the 20-year limit was arbitrary and disrespectful to those who served in earlier conflicts. McCormack appealed to the minister to withdraw the bill, stating it tarnished the memories of veterans and undermined the integrity of the honours system.

minister

Keogh argued the reforms refine the tribunal's operations for the 21st century, addressing concerns raised by the tribunal itself regarding evidentiary issues from conflicts dating back to 1939. The minister clarified that the 20-year limit applies from the end of relevant operations, not from the present day, and stated that restrictions on applicants aim to prevent self-serving claims and unrelated academic inquiries, while still allowing advocates to assist eligible persons. Keogh rejected the opposition's amendments, asserting they removed the bill's substance, and maintained that the government had consulted with ex-service organisations.

Violi argued there was no identified problem requiring legislative intervention and noted that local veterans and RSLs were unaware of the bill's introduction. Violi contended the legislation contradicted previous statements by the Prime Minister regarding the importance of independent merit-based reviews, particularly referencing the award of the Victoria Cross to Teddy Sheean. Violi expressed concern that the changes would make it harder for veterans and their families to receive recognition for their service.

Spender stated she could not support the bill in its current form due to significant concerns from the defence and veteran communities regarding the proposed 20-year time limit on tribunal reviews. Spender argued the restriction would unfairly exclude veterans from recent conflicts and hinder the recognition of valuable contributions to national safety. Spender supported the coalition's amendments to remove the time limit, ensure transparency regarding review rights, and allow advocates to assist veterans who may be unable to manage appeals themselves.

Haines criticised the lack of consultation with veterans and RSL groups, who reported being blindsided by the bill's introduction. Haines argued the government had failed to present a compelling case for reform, noting the tribunal's workload was manageable and it had not requested such changes. Haines supported the opposition's amendments, stating the bill would reduce agency for veterans and their families, and expressed concern that the six-month deadline for reviews was insufficient given potential health issues affecting veterans.