Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010. Broadly speaking, this bill contains five separate measures. It will seek, firstly, to establish the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal as a statutory body; secondly, to ensure that there is fairness in the termination and discharge of an ADF member who has tested positive for a prohibited substance; thirdly, to make a purely administrative change that clarifies arrangements surrounding 58B determinations; fourthly, to amend the provisions contained in the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 so that all reserve members, regardless of how they became a reserve member, can access the support afforded by this program; and, lastly, to make changes to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to enable the appointment of chief petty officers and flight sergeants as discipline officers.

I will now speak on each of these amendments in more detail. The first measure contained within this bill seeks to amend the Defence Act 1903 and establishes the honours and awards tribunal as a statutory body. The tribunal was established in 2008 to inquire into and make recommendations on Defence honours and awards matters relating to issues referred to it by the government. However, the tribunal was only established as an administrative body and, even though the government has undertaken to be bound by the tribunal’s recommendations, the tribunal lacked the authority to make separate decisions or to independently review defence decisions, particularly those concerning eligibility for Defence honours and awards. Importantly, the proposed changes will provide past and present Australian Defence Force members, next of kin and other individuals with the right to appeal directly to the honours and awards tribunal regarding eligibility for Defence honours and awards. However, it should be noted that the tribunal will not review the eligibility for honours or awards that were made before 3 September 1939. As such, any application made regarding service rendered before this date will also not be considered by the tribunal.

I welcome this measure but remain highly sceptical of Parliamentary Secretary Kelly’s statements that these measures will provide a more transparent and accountable process. It must be remembered that this is a government that provided only 1½ pages of costings in the 2009 defence white paper. This is a government that completely blacked out pages upon pages of text within the Pappas review regarding Defence base closures. This is a government that, most recently, failed to make the public aware of the grounding of the entire MRH90 helicopter fleet, which suffered a catastrophic engine failure, for one whole month. So, in light of the above, you will excuse my cynicism regarding this government’s intentions to create a more transparent and accountable defence department.

Additionally, I find it astonishing that, given Parliamentary Secretary Kelly’s supposed enthusiasm with regard to Defence honours and awards, he has remained altogether silent on the issue of James Montgomery. For those unaware of James Montgomery’s infamy, he is an alleged military fraudster who, according to recent media reports, was exposed some weeks ago as having created false military identity cards and a false military service history, which included making himself a former member of the SAS and the recipient of the Victoria Cross. Dr Kelly’s spokesperson confirmed in media reports almost four weeks ago that Dr Kelly would review this case, which would be entirely appropriate seeing he is directly responsible for Defence honours and awards. However, he has failed to take any action on this matter. I therefore take this opportunity to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that it is his responsibility to investigate such matters and that he should do so immediately, not only because he said he would but because fraudsters like James Montgomery denigrate those who have earned their medals and who have earned the right to wear those medals.

The next measure in the bill seeks to amend the Defence Act 1903 in order to ensure there is procedural fairness when a member is discharged following the return of a positive test for a prohibited substance. This amendment has been put forward as a result of recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which recommended the organisational separation between the initiating officer and the decision maker for all cases that involve the termination and discharge process. The current provisions, under part VIIIA of the Defence Act 1903, do not provide for this level of separation or procedural fairness. This amendment simply seeks to rectify this section of the Defence Act.

The next measure is purely administrative and seeks to ensure that 58B determinations relating to remuneration and allowances are subject to tabling and disallowance. This amendment will ensure that 58B determinations are in accordance with the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

The next measure in the bill seeks to amend the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 to ensure that all eligible reserve members, regardless of how they became a reservist, receive assistance under this scheme. This is a minor amendment that will ensure that in particular those permanent members of the ADF who have transferred to the reserves are eligible to receive the assistance provided under this scheme. However, I am at a loss to understand why Parliamentary Secretary Kelly would introduce the aforementioned amendment without considering another long-time bugbear of the reservist community when it comes to accessing the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. Currently reservists who wish to claim DHOAS assistance need to have completed at least eight years of effective service—that is, they need to have completed at least 20 days of reserve service each financial year over eight years. However, reservists may also be able to fast track their qualifying period if they undertake more than six months continuous full time service in one financial year. Under regulation 8(4), a reservist who completes a period of continuous full time service of six months or greater within a service year—a financial year—is considered to have rendered two years effective service when applying for benefits under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme.

Unfortunately, reservists who undertake a deployment that falls across two financial years miss out on this benefit, as their time served is effectively halved across the two financial years. The result is that some reservists receive Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme benefits while others miss out simply because their service straddled two financial years. For example, in 2008-09 reserve members who deployed as part of rotation 15 of Operation Anode and who were still working towards their eight years of effective service missed out as their rotation was deployed from March 2008 to September 2008. Conversely, members of rotation 16 of Operation Anode received a full credit for their continuous full-time service, as their deployment was from July 2008 to January 2009.

The current policy is unfair and is obviously an unintended consequence of the legislation. The question then is why Dr Kelly has chosen to ignore this issue. I know Dr Kelly is aware of this issue, as he has received the same letters from the reservists as I have. In fact, the letters have even noted that Dr Kelly was a recipient. This bill provided Dr Kelly with an opportunity to correct the unintended consequences of the existing legislation, but he has deliberately chosen not to. He has chosen not to because the proposed changes do not affect him directly as a current reservist. Parliamentary Secretary Kelly has simply lost touch with defence personnel, yet he has come into this parliament as a distinguished serving officer.

The last measure contained in this bill will enable the appointment of chief petty officers and flight sergeants as discipline officers. This measure will amend the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to clarify the jurisdiction of discipline officers and align the meaning of discipline officers and available punishments across the three services. This amendment also seeks to clarify the definition of ‘junior officer’ as it pertains to the Defence Force Discipline Act. The current legislation expressly excludes midshipmen in the Navy, but not an officer cadet in the Army or Air Force, as midshipmen are classified as officers even though they are still officers under training. This amendment will align the definition across the services, changing the terminology from ‘junior officer’ to ‘other than a person who holds the rank of officer cadet’. These changes will ensure that the officer cadets of all these three services will be subject to the jurisdiction of a discipline officer and the appropriate punishments as listed under section 169F of the Defence Force Discipline Act.

I support the measures contained in this bill. They are non-controversial and simply seek to amend some administrative and legislative inconsistencies within current defence legislation. However, as I have noted, throughout this bill the minister could have done more and should have done more particularly with regard to rectifying those unintended consequences of the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme legislation that affect reservists.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010. I want to speak on three aspects of this bill, the first dealing with the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal, the second as to procedural fairness in relation to the termination and discharge process, the need for natural justice and the separation of prosecutorial power and decision making and the third in relation to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, which is so relevant to and important in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland, which contains RAAF Base Amberley. I have often been a delegate to the national conference of the ALP. On numerous occasions we have come out strongly, in our policy and platform, in support of the Australian Defence Force, particularly supporting the independence of defence and honouring its role in our community. The areas in relation to awards and medals are certainly difficult. How medals are handed out is often irregular and very complex. Sometimes there is suspicion that it is not necessarily appropriate to hand out medals to a certain person given the duration of service or the area of service. Sometimes there is some suggestion that politics can be involved in the decision making. That is why I think the commitment that we made in the 2007 election campaign to effectively take politics out of the medals policy is so important.

I do not accept the criticisms of the previous speaker in relation to the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support. We have established an independent Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal. It was established in July 2008 and that was done in an administrative capacity. What particular role and what function that tribunal has are problematic without statutory authority. There is no doubt about that. This is always a difficult area, whether it be an administrative or a judicial tribunal given what the Constitution has to say, whether there is a legal basis for establishing such a tribunal and whether it be about the powers and functions and responsibilities of the tribunal and its members. How a person is appointed to the tribunal is also problematic from time to time. So there needs to be statutory authority for that to happen.

The current tribunal really does not have any authority to make separate decisions or to independently review defence decisions concerning the eligibility of military personnel for defence honours and awards. That really should be rectified, and that is what this legislation is doing. It is setting out the functions of the tribunal, its decision making, who can apply for review, the referral of general defence honours and awards issues for inquiry and advice, the constitution and the method of appointment of members and many other transitional provisions which make this tribunal more sound legally and provide a basis at law. I think this is an appropriate way to go. The parliamentary secretary has acted appropriately. I think this will certainly clarify some of the anomalies with respect to the issuing of medals to military personnel. So I applaud the parliamentary secretary for what he has done in this regard.

The second aspect is a very difficult issue. It concerns the termination of employment of a Defence Force person who may test positive for a prohibited substance. This is always a difficult thing because, if that is the case, that person loses their livelihood, perhaps their financial security, their esteem, and they go down in the eyes of their peers and in the community generally. So it is absolutely vital that natural justice be afforded to that particular person. There needs to be a separation between the person who gives that person notice to show cause and the person who terminates their service. It is extraordinary that currently that is not the case. We need to be fair. It does not mean to say that we should not stamp on the use of prohibited substances. If someone—for example, military personnel at RAAF Base Amberley in Queensland—used a prohibited substance and it was an offence under the Queensland Drugs Misuse Act, of course we should show zero tolerance. But we need to make sure, where these things involve many years of service—and perhaps that person can in fact discharge their duties in a way that is respected in the military—where you are talking about a person’s employment, that there is procedural fairness. I applaud the government for what they have done in this regard. It is the right thing to do and it accords with the basic principles of natural justice.

The third aspect of this bill which I wish to talk about deals with amendments in relation to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme as it applies to reservists. The current situation needs to be changed. We will make amendments which will ensure that section 5 of the act applies to all reserve members and clarify that section 5 applies to a member who has become a reserve member as a result of a transfer from the permanent forces. I have had many friends who I have known through sport, community organisations and in church communities in the Ipswich area who have been permanent members of the Royal Australian Air Force who have then left to pursue other careers but have gone back to work as reservists. To clarify the situation is the right thing.

This scheme has been one of the best initiatives we have undertaken with respect to the military. This has really made it more attractive for people to be recruited and to be retained in the military. I have been to the RAAF base on numerous occasions and have spoken to many, many people about this issue in Ipswich. The feedback I have received is that this scheme is well received. They see this as part of a broad set of initiatives by the government with respect to defence personnel, encouraging them to stay in the service. It is important that we provide higher home loan subsidies to permanent members and also to reservists. The legislation sets up that scheme and outlines the number of years a person needs to serve if they are a permanent member of the military and also if they are a reservist. This is a good and important initiative. It is something that defence families have advocated for for a long time.

With respect to the home loan providers—there is reference in previous legislation to this—I have been approached by Bendigo Bank locally to see if they can get a handle on being involved in this process. I am lobbying hard to see whether it can be expanded to see Bendigo Bank included. I have had some discussions with the regional manager, Michael List, in relation to this issue. Michael is also the President of the Ipswich Chamber of Commerce, and I have had some discussions about whether the Bendigo Bank can be involved in the scheme. I would hope the government, at some stage, would look at that.

With respect to defence housing in the Ipswich area, for a long time, sadly—under governments of both persuasions, but particularly under coalition governments—it was neglected and some of the homes in which defence personnel spent their time were inadequate. I have been to many of them in suburbs such as Leichhardt and One Mile, where there was plenty of defence housing. It must have been tough on families—on children and on spouses and partners—to have to come and live in inadequate facilities and homes away from their loved ones interstate or intrastate.

But we are investing a lot of money in my electorate in defence housing, and this correlates with the initiatives we are undertaking with respect to the legislation and particularly the schedule under the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010, which we are debating here. We are building 111 defence houses in Ipswich over the next few years. This is injecting $36 million into our economy. It has created 35 jobs in the Ipswich community and indirectly benefited many more. I have visited many of these houses, particularly in the suburb of Flinders View, where I live. In fact, many of the houses are in the estate just up the hill from where I live, and the housing is of very high quality. The housing is very well received. They are four-bedroom brick homes with wonderful views as well. It is also not just part of the usual defence housing that we are constructing in Ipswich but part of the nation-building stimulus plan.

Currently across Australia DHA manages about 17,300 properties, worth about $7.6 billion. Shortly, under the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, I am to officially open another 20 homes in Raceview, which is the neighbouring suburb to Flinders View on the south side of Ipswich. I want to congratulate the government for taking that initiative. The quality of that housing, I am sure, will be every bit as good as the quality of the housing at Flinders View.

Honouring our military personnel by way of medals but also providing practical support for them in terms of housing is crucial. But, finally, providing procedural fairness for those people facing the possibility of losing their employment is also particularly important. And that is why this initiative in this legislation is so important for my community in Ipswich in South-East Queensland, where the RAAF base at Amberley is based.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to lend the coalition’s support to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010. The bill will address five separate measures, notably the following: firstly, establishing the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal by legislation; secondly, ensuring there is procedural fairness in the discharge and termination process which relates to a person who has returned a positive test result for a prohibited substance; thirdly, ensuring that section 58B determinations, relating to remuneration and allowances, are subject to tabling and disallowance; fourthly, amending the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 to ensure that it covers all members of the reserves; and, fifthly, amending the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to enable the appointment of chief petty officers and flight sergeants as discipline officers. The coalition supports all five schedules, but I wish to restrict my remarks just to schedule 1. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, Mike Kelly, for his and his office and department’s assistance in coming to grips with the key areas of what the bill proposes.

The principal intent of schedule 1 of the bill is to insert a new part into the Defence Act 1903 to formally establish the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal by legislation. I note that this is the fulfilment of a Labor 2007 election policy that stated:

A Rudd Labor Government will form a permanent independent tribunal to oversight Defence honours and awards, to take the politics out of medal policy.

Accordingly, in 2008 the government established the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal—let us call it the DHAAT—to consider longstanding defence honours and awards issues. At the time, of course, this tribunal was not supported by legislation—hence the bill now. Thus the Department of Defence issued a directive outlining the roles and responsibilities of the tribunal. Notwithstanding that the authority for this directive is unknown—and, perhaps, a little dubious at best—the government, to the parliamentary secretary’s credit, stated that they would abide by the tribunal’s ruling, and there does not appear to have been any infraction of that. It appears that the government has indeed abided by the rulings of the tribunal.

Prior to the establishment of the current tribunal, there was no avenue of appeal open to Australian Defence Force members, ex-serving members, next of kin or others who had applied for medals and had their application declined, short of a ministerial application. There was also no permanent body that could independently consider broader recognition issues relating to defence service. The limitations of the current unlegislated tribunal are that it can only inquire into and make recommendations relating to issues referred to it by the government and clearly has no authority to make separate decisions or to independently review defence decisions concerning eligibility for defence honours and awards.

The establishment of this tribunal as a statutory body under the Defence Act 1903 will clearly legislate the current tribunal and will, in my opinion, strengthen the current tribunal’s independence, which I think will actually assist in making the Defence honours and awards decision making process more transparent. I think it provides a clear and simple process for people seeking some degree of redress to go to a tribunal to seek that redress. People will still be able to appeal a decision of the tribunal through the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, as they should be able to.

To date the tribunal has ruled on a range of awards: the criteria for the Australian Defence Medal; the claims of the Merchant Navy, including the US Army Small Ships Section; 4RAR Malaysia; and the Battle of Long Tan inquiry. And I can say the tribunal has dealt with those four in a highly professional manner, producing a set of recommendations that I think meet the high standards or community awareness and concern.

The tribunal is also currently inquiring into recognition of contributions made by officers and instructors in the Australian Cadet Forces; recognition of unattached Australian entertainers in the Vietnam Conflict; recognition of Australian Defence Force service for SAS counterterrorism and special recovery duties; recognition of service in Somalia; recognition for members of the ADF for service in Papua New Guinea after 16 September 1975; and of course recognition for Defence Force personnel who served as peacekeepers from 1947 to the present. I note the tribunal will rule on all military medals, including Mention in Dispatches, Imperial awards and foreign awards, which I think is a fairly inclusive way of looking at it. The procedural rules will come down via legislative instruments.

The Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal is a sensible move forward. The only thing I would add, considering the parliamentary secretary is in the room, is that we still have no area for appeals for those who are outside the military. For example, if an AusAID worker was working somewhere in Cambodia and missed out on the humanitarian medal, there is nowhere they could go to seek appeal. There is also nowhere the Federal Police could go to seek appeal or redress for those types of awards and honours. There may be room in the future for the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal to be expanded to include a whole range of other awards and honours, including humanitarian, police and other sectors that seek to serve. I offer that constructively. Otherwise, I lend my full support to schedule 1 and the establishment of a Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to lend my support to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010. The proposed bill will address five separate areas but will include the establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal, ensure that there is procedural fairness in the determination or charges being processed for defence members who test positive to prohibited substances and make it absolutely clear that section 58B determinations for non-salary conditions of service are subject to tabling and disallowance.

The bill will also amend the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme 2008. It will ensure that section 5 of the act applies to Reserve members. To clarify, section 5 applies to all members who become reservists—they are subject to eligibility whether they transfer from the permanent services or not. That, quite frankly, is very important, as I understand it, to a number of people in my electorate who have lobbied long and hard for that particular provision.

Finally, the bill will amend the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to enable the appointment of chief petty officers, together with flight sergeants, as discipline officers. Warrant officers of the Army are already included. The bill will align the punishments available to be imposed in respect of certain ranks.

The government remains totally committed to ensure the security of Australia. There can be no greater responsibility of any government than to ensure national security. To this end we are committed to building a Defence Force that is combat focused, better equipped, more mobile, more capable and certainly operationally ready. To help achieve this we must support our Defence Force through targeted legislation. That is exactly what this piece of legislation is.

Only last month I had the unique opportunity, as the parliamentary secretary is aware, to attend—with, I think, six other members—the Defence Force Parliamentary Program. We spent 10 days in the joint service facility at Al Minhad, which is a staging ground for many of those who are going on to serve our country in Afghanistan. The point of the story is to say that we had those 10 days to actually sit down and spend a great deal of time just with the ordinary men and women of the Australian Defence Force. You cannot help but be touched by their professionalism, their dedication to task and certainly their commitment to their objectives which are defined by the Australian government in terms of their operation.

One of the major things that was discussed with us over there, one of the major things about increasing the retention of the service, was their position in terms of home ownership. That was one of the big things that members of all ranks discussed with us, which is a bipartisan grouping as to one of their decisions to remain in the service. It is no doubt an attraction and certainly important to the retention rates of the ADF, which are very important. After investing in the building up of their skills and their capability, the last thing we want to do is lose those to private enterprise, because those skill sets which they have built up are very sought after. The people that we have built up are in fact sought after. Hence we have attracted to our side of politics the good doctor here, the member for Eden-Monaro. Being a colonel, he has made a major contribution to the government, particularly in honing our focus on how we look after men and women who serve us so bravely in the Australian uniform.

Also very important for many of those people—and I have them nearby to my electorate, particularly in Holsworthy—is the overall pride in the uniform, the pride in being a member of an organisation, and also knowing full well that it is an organisation that has command, control and very clear lines of discipline. Those areas of discipline must be clearly spelt out. The changes that have been brought as a result of this act do much to ensure not only the continuation of discipline but also something that we take for granted, and that is procedural fairness.

Before coming here I did a number of things, but I represented people industrially for a good part of my working life. One of the big things that was always a challenge was to ensure people had procedural fairness shown to them when there was serious action being taken that could curtail someone’s employment. This piece of legislation now does enshrine that. Those military personnel will be given the same degree of procedural fairness as we would expect for our own sons and daughters working in civil occupations.

It is also important to appreciate the position in terms of the processing of honours and setting up the tribunal to make sure it is at arm’s length and fully independent from government. Many members have veterans associations in their electorates. I compliment them on the services they do in respect of veterans and members of the armed service. One of the areas of particular activity for the people in the service groups in my electorate was to focus on the issue of the battle of Long Tan. I know that matter has now been before the tribunal.

Veterans in my electorate, because some were participants, were very supportive of the stance taken by Colonel Harry Smith in his standing up for Delta Company 6RAR and ensuring that there be just recognition of the commitment of Australian soldiers in that particular battle. It is one in which Australia, as I understand it, was outnumbered 10 to one. It is one in which, tragically, 18 Australian lives were lost and another 23 people were wounded. As it has been recounted to me, particularly by my local veterans, this was when they were standing up against an emerging force of a North Vietnamese regiment and members of the Vietcong. As the battle finally concluded and after relief had been provided to the Australian soldiers, it was found that more than 1½ thousand of the enemy had either been killed or died subsequently of wounds. That was an extremely courageous, heroic stand by 6RAR and I think it is one that is going to live long in the memory of all those who honour the name and the reputation of the 18 servicemen who died on that occasion.

Putting it at arm’s length takes some of the emotion out of it and a lot of the perceived stance of senior officers’ recommendations. It allows for a tribunal to entertain evidence based upon fact and make clear and concise recommendations. There is now an appeal mechanism. In terms of the value we place on military service—the value I know the service puts on its medals and its recognition—let me tell you that these people do not go into these occupations to make money. They go in there to serve the country and they deserve to have full recognition for what they bring to bear on our behalf. I think this will go a long way to satisfy that desire, not only for existing members of the ADF but also for those who look after retired members who have served this country well. This is a way of showing continued loyalty to the men and women of the ADF. I commend this legislation to the House.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up the debate on Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010 I would like to thank all those members who made genuine contributions to this debate today. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to the member for Fadden who engaged diligently and genuinely with us in the process of explaining this legislation, and I welcome the constructive comments he made in the Chamber today. I would also like to acknowledge the interest in defence matters the members for Werriwa and Blair have shown in the conduct of my duties over the course of these last couple of years. They are very genuinely concerned about the welfare of members in their electorates. I will, however, comment separately in relation to the comments made by the member for Paterson, which I place in an entirely different category, but I will address those at the conclusion of these remarks.

The proposed bill provides for five separate measures. The first is that it amends the Defence Act 1903 to establish the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal by legislation, inserting a new part 8C in the Defence Act 1903, to establish the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal. The amendment sets out the functions of the new tribunal, what decisions are reviewable by the new tribunal, who may apply for review—including a power for the minister to refer general defence honours and awards issues for inquiry and advice, general provisions relating to the operation of the new tribunal, the constitution of it and appointment of members and transitional provisions for the continuation of business of the current administrative tribunal and the automatic appointment of current members to this new tribunal. Second, it amends the Defence Act to ensure that there is procedural fairness in the determination and discharge process where a defence member has tested positive for a prohibited substance.

Third, it amends the Defence Act to make it absolutely clear that section 58B determinations made under the Defence Act are subject to tabling and disallowance and are able to operate with certainty and transparency. Prior to the commencement of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, determinations made under section 58B of the Defence Act were subject to tabling and disallowance. With the introduction of the Legislative Instruments Act, determinations made under section 58B of the Defence Act were expressly exempted by the Legislative Instruments Act from being subject to the new legislative insurance regime. It was always the intention that the tabling and disallowance regime continue in accordance with section 46B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Fourth, it amends the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 to ensure that it covers all members of the Reserves regardless of the way they became members of the Reserves. It was the original policy intent that section 5 of the act should cover all members of the Reserves, including those engaged by transfer. The scheme has been administered consistent with this intent.

Fifth, it amends the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to enable the appointment of chief petty officers and flight sergeants as ‘discipline officers’ to clarify the jurisdiction of discipline officers and to align the punishments available to be imposed in respect of certain ranks.

There were further comments made by the member for Paterson, as I referred to earlier, in relation to an incident involving an individual who is alleged to have worn decorations and awards to which he was not entitled. This matter was first raised with me by an AAP journalist and I requested the department to provide advice to me on 6 May. That advice was received in my office last Friday, so I do now have information concerning this individual. The Defence Department was not aware of those circumstances prior to my request for further information. I advise the member for Paterson that I am not a police officer and therefore have no responsibility for prosecutions of violations of the provisions of the Defence Act which relate to this incident. Any person who had information concerning this individual had open to them the option of referring the matter to the appropriate authorities, in which case it would have been dealt with in accordance with those provisions. I have no jurisdiction to act as an independent prosecutor or authority in relation to allegations of that nature, so I am uncertain as to what aspect of my duties the member for Paterson was referring to in relation to the matter.

The second matter to which the member for Paterson referred relates to the operation of the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. He referred to the operation in relation to certain aspects of its application to the Reserves. This matter, he stated, was an aspect of my responsibility. However, I should clarify for the chamber that that is not the case; it is the responsibility of the minister who has the carriage of personnel matters—formerly Minister Combet and currently Minister Griffin. I can advise the chamber that the matters raised by the member for Paterson are currently being investigated by the department, which was requested to do so by Minister Combet. This bill is not the appropriate mechanism for these issues to be resolved because the regulations are available for those aspects of adjustment that were raised by the member—if they are warranted, and that is yet to be established. So at this stage we are waiting upon a report from the department to the minister.

I have to say also that I resent greatly the member’s implied slur with regard to the way the scheme is operating. He commented that the scheme was in some way designed to benefit me personally. In my second reading speech, in which I introduced this bill into the House, I specifically made statements indicating that I was not attempting to draw upon the anomaly that was highlighted in this legislation and to which this amendment is addressed. Had I taken advantage of that to which I was actually legally entitled, it would have meant that I could have obtained a sum upwards of $128,000. I have deliberately, clearly and publicly stated that I intend not to take advantage of that loophole and that I have discounted myself from that scheme and made no application whatsoever in relation to that scheme to pursue those entitlements.

That statement of mine was absolutely clear and I resent entirely the slur from the member for Paterson. I think it reflects more upon him than it does upon me. I would have to say that he reveals himself—through his incompetent comments in relation to this legislation and through his behaviour in terms of his slurs against me and others—as not an appropriate person ever to carry responsibility for the members of this Defence Force.

He also claimed that I had lost touch with members of the Defence Force. I can assure him that as a reservist and as a person with portfolio responsibilities, I take great pleasure and pride in my daily contact with Defence personnel. I was recently up in Darwin at Robertson Barracks and HMAS Coonawarra, and regularly have contact with these members. I understand deeply the nature of their service and the difficulties and challenges that they face. I do my very best to represent their interests in this portfolio, and resent and reject entirely the implications of his comments.

I thank members who made genuine contributions to this debate and I look forward to the further operation of the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal, in particular, which has made great progress in clearing up a backlog of many decades of issues which, in some cases had quite shamefully been left neglected. They have made very many people very happy in relation to the outcomes they have achieved so far under the operation of the tribunal. Once again, I thank the member for Fadden, also, for his comments and for his constructive engagement in this process.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.