Remembrance Day: Have We Forgotten Those Who Served Australia?

As Remembrance Day arrives on 11 November, I find myself reflecting on something that should never become a political afterthought: how Australia treats the men and women who have served our country.

We gather each year to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. We wear our poppies, observe a minute’s silence and speak of courage, loyalty and freedom. These are important traditions. But I wonder whether we show the same respect to those who return home after serving.

It is easy to honour the fallen in speeches. It is another thing to stand by our veterans when they need support, recognition and fair treatment.

For me, Remembrance Day is also an opportunity to ask our political leaders whether their decisions reflect the gratitude they express at commemorative services.

The difference between governments and the treatment of veterans

I have never believed that Liberal Coalition governments were perfect. No government is. However, I remember a time when I felt there was a stronger public commitment to recognising and defending the service of our veterans.

One example that stands out is the controversy surrounding the Afghanistan Special Operations Task Group.

In 2020, following the Brereton Inquiry into alleged misconduct by Australian special forces in Afghanistan, then Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell recommended withdrawing the Meritorious Unit Citation awarded to approximately 3,000 personnel who had served between 2007 and 2013.

In April 2021, the then Coalition Defence Minister Peter Dutton decided that the collective citation should be retained. His position was that the overwhelming majority who had served honourably should not be collectively punished for the alleged wrongdoing of individuals. Those found guilty could still face individual consequences.

I thought this was an important distinction: recognise those who served honourably while holding individuals accountable for their own actions.

Under the Albanese Labor Government, another decision followed. In September 2024, Defence Minister Richard Marles announced the removal of distinguished service awards from fewer than ten current or former senior commanders following reviews of their command responsibility during the Afghanistan conflict.

These were different decisions involving different awards and responsibilities. Yet it did not sit well for the veteran community. I don’t blame them.

I understand that serious allegations must be investigated. No one should be above the law. But I also believe accountability must be fair and consistent, extending throughout the chain of command where responsibility is established. I really don’t understand, why the Defence Minister Richard Marles decided to remove the service awards. They were sent by the Australian government to Afghanistan. They were following order from the Australian government and the generals. Why did Richard Miles whole the government and the generals accountable. Only the soldiers. A reminder of what happen with veterans that returned from Vietnam.

Accountability should never be applied selectively.

Under the Albanese Labor Government, another decision followed. In September 2024, Defence Minister Richard Marles announced the removal of distinguished service awards from fewer than ten current and former senior commanders following reviews of their command responsibilities during the Afghanistan conflict.

These were separate decisions involving different awards and responsibilities. Nevertheless, the decision did not sit well with the veteran community, and I can understand why.

I recognise that serious allegations must be investigated and that no one should be above the law. However, accountability must be fair and consistent, extending throughout the chain of command wherever responsibility is established.

What I struggle to understand is why the focus appeared to fall on the senior commanders and their service awards without the same public scrutiny of the Australian Government and the senior military leadership who made the decisions to deploy Australian forces and establish the command structure under which they operated.

Australian soldiers were sent to Afghanistan as part of a government-led military mission. They served under orders and within a chain of command. If we are examining responsibility for what happened, surely that examination must consider the decisions made at every level, including those of government and senior military leadership, not just the individuals who served on the ground.

It is difficult not to draw comparisons with the experience of Australian veterans returning from the Vietnam War, many of whom felt abandoned and unsupported by the country they had served.

Accountability should never be applied selectively. Those who serve deserve fairness, and responsibility should be examined wherever it genuinely lies.

What about the veterans who came home?

There is more to respecting veterans than medals and decorations.

There are people who returned from war carrying injuries that cannot always be seen. There are families who have lived with the consequences of military service. There are veterans who have struggled to obtain the assistance they need.

The Australian National Audit Office reported that, as of 28 February 2026, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs had 95,650 claims on hand, including 29,989 that had not yet been allocated to an officer.

The average processing time for certain claims is substantial.

Behind these figures are real people. People who have already given years of their lives to this country and who may now be waiting for assistance with injuries and conditions connected to their service.

Governments can point to funding, reforms and new programmes. But what matters to a veteran is whether the assistance arrives when it is needed.

Respect cannot be measured by announcements alone.

Victoria Barracks: Have we forgotten what it represents?

Another decision by the Albanese Government that troubled me was the proposed disposal of Victoria Barracks in Paddington, Sydney.

This is not simply another government property. Its history dates to the 1840s. It has been an important centre of military activity in New South Wales for generations.

Victoria Barracks also has a significant connection to Australia’s military history. The site was used for recruitment activities during both World Wars and is home to the Army Museum of NSW.

For many Australians, this is more than a collection of old buildings. It represents generations of military service and sacrifice.

I was particularly disappointed by the remarks made by Defence Minister Richard Marles about the historic wine cellar and lawn bowls facilities at the barracks. He questioned their relevance to Defence’s operational requirements.

What I find particularly disappointing is the way our military heritage has been spoken about. It is not simply an item of expenditure or an operational consideration. It represents the service, sacrifice and commitment of Australians who have served their country. To speak about it in a way that makes it sound like a burden, or an inconvenience shows little regard for those who have worn the uniform and for the veterans who carry that history with them. They deserve more respect than that.

Defence Minister Richard Marles comments did not sit well with me.

Veterans, former senior military officers, the RSL and members of the public raised concerns about the proposed disposal. People from different political backgrounds questioned the government’s approach.

I also questioned whether the long-term strategic needs of our country had been adequately considered.

The government argued that the site was underused, expensive to maintain and no longer suited to Defence’s operational needs. It estimated that significant expenditure would be required to maintain it as a Defence site.

Those arguments deserve consideration. But there is a difference between relocating Defence personnel and disposing of a site with such an important history.

A change of position, but only a partial victory

On 8 November, just three days before Remembrance Day, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that Victoria Barracks Sydney would remain in public ownership. Its heritage would be protected, and the Australian War Memorial would be involved in telling its history.

This was a welcome change from the original proposal to sell the property.

However, there is something important that should not be overlooked.

The military personnel are still expected to leave. By the end of 2026, almost all personnel at Victoria Barracks will have been relocated to Randwick Barracks and Defence Plaza Sydney.

Richard Marles argues that Defence Plaza Sydney, established under the former Coalition Government, is a modern facility that is currently around 60 per cent empty and better suited to office-based work.

There is another aspect of Defence Plaza Sydney that raises questions beyond its occupancy and suitability as office accommodation: national security.

Defence Plaza Sydney is a foreign-owned commercial building. During Senate Estimates, it was revealed that the beneficial owners are a Singapore real estate fund and that the building is mortgaged to the Singapore-based Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC).

This raises legitimate questions about foreign ownership, financial interests and the security of Australian Defence facilities. While Defence officials maintain that security assessments and safeguards are in place, questions were raised during the hearing about whether Defence was aware of the mortgage.

If we are relocating elements of our Defence command structure into a privately owned, foreign-financed commercial building, Australians are entitled to ask what safeguards are in place to protect sensitive information, communications and national security.

It is not enough to say that the building has secure areas. We should also be asking whether placing important Defence personnel in a foreign-owned commercial property is the most appropriate long-term arrangement for Australia's national security.

 I question why the military needs to be moved out of Victoria Barracks altogether?

A military barracks is more than office accommodation. It represents an active connection between our armed forces, their history and the wider community.

What does it say about our appreciation of military tradition when we preserve the buildings but remove the people who give them their continuing purpose?

The RSL has welcomed the decision to retain the property but described it as a partial victory. Its concern is that keeping the buildings in public hands protects military heritage but does not necessarily protect Defence capability.

I share the concern that more needs to be considered.

Why can’t an appropriate military presence remain? Have all the alternatives been properly explored?

Keeping the historic buildings, opening them to the public and allowing commercial opportunities may preserve part of their heritage. But it does not answer the question of why an active military presence is no longer considered appropriate. Why the insistence of moving to Defence Plaza Sydney a foreign-owned commercial building?

To me, this feels like a half-hearted compromise. The government has responded to public pressure by retaining the property, but it is still proceeding with the departure of Defence personnel.

Preserving our military history should mean more than maintaining historic buildings and inviting people to visit them.

We should also respect the living connection between those buildings and the men and women who serve.

A question of government priorities

This brings me to a broader concern about government spending and priorities.

Prime Minister Albanese regularly speaks about the responsibilities and entitlements of his office. Yet I wonder whether our political leaders fully appreciate that the freedom and security they enjoy in that office were defended by generations of Australians who served this country.

If it were not for their sacrifices, would our political leaders enjoy the same freedoms, privileges and opportunities they have today?

The Prime Minister has access to The Lodge in Canberra and Kirribilli House in Sydney. These are publicly owned heritage properties, and I understand that official residences serve a purpose.

But when governments ask Australians to accept difficult financial decisions and look for savings, shouldn’t all areas of government expenditure be open to scrutiny?

Why is there so much attention on reducing costs associated with Defence properties and military heritage, while other areas of government expenditure and official entitlements should also be examined?

Why not consider whether selling or changing the use of an official residence such as Kirribilli House could be part of a broader discussion about government savings?

I recognise that such a proposal would involve practical and heritage considerations. My point is that no area of government spending should be beyond reasonable examination.

I am also concerned about waste and misuse of public funds, including within the NDIS. People who genuinely need disability support must be protected. At the same time, fraud and misuse must be addressed firmly, regardless of who is involved. Political sensitivities should never prevent proper scrutiny.

There are savings to be pursued across government. Veterans and Defence personnel should not be made to feel that their history, facilities and needs are among the easiest places to look for savings.

Nor do I think it is sufficient for the government to defend a decision by saying that previous governments did the same thing.

The Albanese Government is the government of the day. It is responsible for its own decisions, just as previous governments were responsible for theirs.

Leadership means taking responsibility, not simply pointing to the past.

Respect is demonstrated through actions, not speeches

I listened to the recent statements about Victoria Barracks, but I cannot separate those words from the decisions and remarks that came before them.

The way our military heritage has been discussed, the original proposal to sell the barracks and the continuing decision to relocate its military personnel have all contributed to my concerns.

I cannot speak for every veteran, but veterans and their organisations have publicly expressed their disappointment and concerns.

These are people who are expected to defend Australia, follow orders and put their lives at risk when called upon.

When they return home injured, traumatised or struggling with the consequences of their service, they should not feel that they are a burden or that their requests for assistance are simply complaints.

They should not have to fight another battle to receive the support they need.

We should be asking ourselves whether we are giving them the respect and care they deserve.

Why must our veterans turn to charity for help?

There is another question I cannot ignore.

We ask our men and women in uniform to put their lives on the line for Australia. We expect them to defend our country and accept the risks that come with military service.

But what happens when they return home physically or psychologically damaged, unable to work as they once did, or struggling to rebuild their lives?

Why do some veterans and their families have to turn to charities for basic assistance with accommodation, food, fuel and other essential needs?

I recently came across Wounded Heroes Australia, a national charity supporting current and former Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families who are experiencing financial hardship, homelessness or other crises.

Its work includes emergency accommodation, food assistance, financial support and a 24-hour crisis service.

According to its website, the organisation assisted 5,803 veterans and families during 2025 and funded $589,300 in crisis support.

That is a considerable amount of assistance from a charitable organisation.

It is commendable that charities, volunteers and ordinary Australians step forward to help those who have served. Their generosity is important, and I would encourage readers to learn about the work being done.

But it also leaves me with an uncomfortable question.

Why should a veteran who sacrificed so much for Australia have to depend on charity to receive the help they need?

Shouldn’t the Australian Government, through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and other appropriate services, ensure that those who have served receive timely and adequate support?

Charities can provide valuable emergency assistance, but they should not become a substitute for the government’s responsibility to look after its veterans.

I understand that not every situation can be resolved by government funding alone. However, when people who have served their country find themselves struggling to meet basic living expenses, we need to ask whether the support system is working as it should.

There should be no unnecessary delays, no indifference and no making veterans feel that they are asking for too much.

They have earned the right to be heard.

I would rather see our government take greater responsibility for veterans than leave charities and the generosity of the Australian public to fill the gaps.

How you can support our veterans

If you would like to support veterans and their families, I encourage you to visit Wounded Heroes Australia and learn about their work.

Wounded Heroes Australia

Website: https://www.woundedheroes.org.au/

Their 24-hour crisis support hotline is 1300 532 112.

You can learn more about their services, make a donation or find ways to support their work.

Every contribution can help provide practical assistance to a veteran or family experiencing hardship.

Remembrance Day should mean more than remembering

I sometimes wonder whether our political leaders fully appreciate the freedom they enjoy.

They can stand in Parliament, debate, disagree, criticise one another and make decisions about the future of this country. We, as Australians, can question our leaders, protest and express opinions, even when those opinions are unpopular.

I can write this reflection and question the government because I enjoy freedoms that generations before me helped defend.

But those freedoms were not simply handed to us.

Australians served in two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and many other conflicts and peacekeeping operations. Some never returned. Others came home carrying physical and emotional wounds. Their families also made sacrifices that are often overlooked.

Our political leaders, regardless of their party, benefit from those sacrifices.

I am not suggesting that veterans should be exempt from accountability or that Defence should be immune from necessary reform.

I am asking for fairness, consideration, gratitude and respect.

I do not expect governments to be perfect. I do expect leadership to come with responsibility and humility.

Remembrance Day should be more than a ceremony, a wreath or a minute’s silence. It should remind us of our obligations in the present.

A country should not be satisfied with remembering its veterans if it is not prepared to look after them.

To those who served Australia, to those wLetho returned home carrying the consequences of their service, to the families who waited and supported them, and to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, thank you.

May we never take your service for granted.

And may those entrusted with leading this country always remember the debt we owe you.

Lest we forget.