Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make a few comments today with respect to the budget, particularly in relation to the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio. The government deserves to be congratulated with respect to aspects of the budget concerning veterans’ affairs. There are several particular initiatives that I have mentioned as I have travelled around the country talking to veterans in recent times. One is the increase in funeral benefits. There was an increase in the maximum funeral benefit for eligible veterans under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act from $1,000 to $2,000. Labor congratulates the government on this initiative. There has been a longstanding concern within the veteran community about the low level of this benefit in comparison to the benefit allowed under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This initiative goes some way to addressing the discrepancy and is a positive step in the right direction. It certainly is raised with me regularly by many veterans. I know many in that community will feel this has not gone far enough. I understand their position on that. It is something we will be looking at. However, at this stage I congratulate the government on taking action with this measure.

The budget also contained a compensation payment of $25,000 to former Australian prisoners of war in Europe or their surviving widows. Labor welcomes this ex gratia payment. This is a long overdue initiative that addresses a previous injustice that had left these prisoners out of two previous ex gratia payments. In 2001 the Howard government made a payment of $25,000 to former Australian prisoners of war in Japan. At this stage there was much criticism that they had left out the POWs from Europe and Korea. In 2004, after the Clarke review—which I will have more to say about later—they finally made a payment to former Australian prisoners of war in Korea. Again they were criticised for leaving out the Australian prisoners of war from Europe. Finally, six years and two elections after the original announcement, these former prisoners or their surviving widows are getting what is duly owed to them. Labor congratulates the government on finally correcting this injustice and fully supports this worthwhile initiative. I would like to particularly congratulate the minister, because I know that he has been interested in this issue since he became the minister. I give him credit for being able to steer this action through at this budget.

The budget also has a measure to allow war widows who claim a war widows pension following the death of their spouse an additional three months to claim a backdated pension. This is a worthwhile and positive reform, and it has the full support of Labor. Also, let us not forget the $50 per fortnight for special rate pensions and $25 for intermediate rate pensions. Again, I will have more to say about that a bit later on.

Given that mental health is meant to be one of the government’s priorities in this area, it was disappointing to see no measures to combat mental illness or veteran suicide specifically outlined in the budget. Federal Labor will also be closely monitoring the Howard government’s announcements of increased compliance and potential savings arising from the areas of disability pensions, medications and health treatment to ensure that veterans are not disadvantaged in any way.

As a result of the budget there has been a lot of discussion and debate within the veterans community about what the government has not done. One thing it has not done is address the longstanding issue of indexation for above general rate pensions. There are a number of points here which are very important. The value of above general rate pensions, particularly TPI, TTI, intermediate and EDA pensions, has been eroded dramatically, particularly over the last 10 years. That erosion has come from the inadequate indexation method employed for those pensions. Up to 2004 the CPI was the only means of indexation. In 1997 the government adopted male total average weekly earnings—MTAWE—or CPI, whichever is the greater, as the means for adjusting some pensions, such as the age pension. As a result of the Clarke review of veterans entitlements and, more to the point, as a result of significant furore raised by elements of the veteran community, adjustments were made to that indexation method in 2004. A component was indexed to movements in the MTAWE or CPI, but there still remained a significant component that was only indexed to CPI. This has led to a continuing erosion of the value of these pensions.

This has been a longstanding concern right across the veteran community. This is not something that is wanted just by TPIs. It has been raised by the RSL, the TPI Federation, the Vietnam Veterans Federation, the Vietnam Veterans Association and AVADSC. There is not a major ex-service organisation in this country that has not raised this as an issue of concern. They are concerned about the lack of equity and justice with respect to the way their benefits and compensation are being treated by this government. As a result of those concerns, Labor announced just prior to the budget that we would have a new system whereby we would fully index these pensions to movements in MTAWE or CPI, whichever is the greater. There is absolutely no doubt that there is now a very clear difference between the government and the opposition on indexation in this area. This impacts on some 43,000 war veterans with disabilities who fought in World War II, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, the Gulf War—and more recently—East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. This indexation change will ensure that veterans are not required to go cap in hand to the government every budget year—or, worse, every election year—in order to get a catch-up payment.

This particular initiative has been well and truly welcomed within the veterans community but not by the government. The minister of the day has in fact attacked it. On one hand, he has accused it of being a cobbled together media stunt; on the other hand, he has accused us of being slick and slippery with respect to what we have actually proposed to do. I find that a little bit confusing in terms of the metaphors there. I do not quite know how you cobble together a stunt while at the same time you are slick and slippery. I would have thought that they are pretty much at odds. Nonetheless, that has been the sort of view that has been put out there by the minister in response to what we have done.

The challenge for the minister is this: this position has been welcomed; it has been called for; it has been the policy of all the major ex-service organisations right across the board over the last 10 years. Frankly, he is the odd man out. He needs to look at that because the fact of the matter is that this issue is not going to go away. The circumstances around this will need to be addressed and this government needs to look at addressing it. He has continually, since that time, ruled out this proposal. I ask him to reconsider it because this matter should be reconsidered. There is no doubt that the ALP’s policy on this occasion is vastly superior to the government’s. It gives certainty, dignity and justice to some of our most severely disabled war veterans and it is definitely something that the government should be looking very seriously at doing.

Another couple of issues within the portfolio that I would like to talk about briefly relate to matters that I have spoken about on a number of occasions—in particular, the Children of Vietnam Veterans Health study. In this area we have had a situation where at the last election Labor promised, as part of its policy at that election, to fund a study and for a study to take place. The government instead promised to do a feasibility study—if you like, a study into a study to see where things go from there. That feasibility study has now taken place and the results became clear. This was a very difficult and quite complex matter. The fact is that there was no doubt that a study could take place and effective results could be gained from it, but the situation was that it would be complex and there would be some methodological issues that had to be dealt with in the process of conducting that study.

As a result of that the minister decided to in fact hold a study into developing protocols for the conduct of a study. He gave a number of reasons as to why that should be the case, including concerns about the fact that the original proposal which came back from the feasibility study involved a study of just male Army veterans. There were good reasons, as were clearly explained in that feasibility study as to why you would need to conduct matters at this stage in that way. But, instead, what we have had is another referral to develop protocols. Two points need to be remembered here. Never before in the history of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, who have conducted many health studies over the years, has there been a need to conduct a feasibility study in the first place before you conduct a study. Then, having done that, never before in the history of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs have we had a situation where there has been a study into the development of protocols before you commit to a study. In the past, protocols were normally a quite useful and necessary first step once you agreed to conduct a study. The circumstances are that they went on from there to actually conduct a study and the protocols were developed as part of that study. We now have a separate mechanism before we go to the step of committing.

Labor recently recommitted and made it clear that we will fund a study. We will fund a study regardless, frankly, of what comes back from the protocol study, because we believe, as the feasibility study showed, that it can be done and it should be done—and under Labor it will be done. Yet we still have the government being silent on this issue. We still have a situation where the minister could today say, ‘I will act upon the protocol study; I will move forward on this issue once I have got that study.’ But, in fact, what we have had is mainly silence. In recent times, because of pressure put by Labor and elements of the veterans community, we have had some signs from the department that they are making noises about the fact that they are hopeful that things can go ahead once the protocol study is presented, but at this stage we still have no commitment.

The fact is that the government ought to commit. One thing they should make sure of is that, when the protocol study comes down in the next few weeks, they commit to ensure that the Australian public and the veterans community know what they will do in response to this issue before the next election. The veterans community have a right to expect that it will be very clear on the government’s position at the next election with respect to the conduct of a study on the children of Vietnam veterans. There is no doubt that the health issues faced, the increased rate of suicide and the birth defects and other concerns that have come up with respect to Vietnam veterans’ children are such that a study needs to be done.

Another initiative that was recently announced by Labor related to increased funding being provided with respect to assistance through a particular program regarding the issue of suicide in the veterans community. I have previously, on a number of occasions, expressed my concern about the problem of suicide within the veterans community and their families. I was very disappointed to see that the budget did not include any measures specifically designed to combat this problem—and it is a problem.

In response to a question on notice, the department has revealed that at least 31 veterans have committed suicide over the past five years as a result of their service. This is a sad and tragic statistic. However this is far from the whole story. The department made the point that they do not include in these figures those on the special rate TPI pension or veterans waiting for their claims to be processed. This is very concerning as these two groups would be the ones at highest risk of suicide, suggesting that the number of veterans who have committed suicide may be many more. These statistics also do not include members of the broader ex-service community who have no qualifying service and have committed suicide. No qualifying service does not mean ‘no problems’.

We know that families also suffer. Children of Vietnam veterans are known to have a suicide rate three times higher than other children. Suicide is an important issue for the veterans community. To overcome this we must be proactive. We cannot sit back and wait for people to self-report. We cannot expect that everyone with a problem will be forthcoming in asking for help. That is why we need to equip the veterans community with the skills to identify and deal with people who may be on the long road to despair and need our help. The time for action is now.

At the Queensland RSL congress recently I announced that a Rudd Labor government will implement reforms and increase financial assistance to the Applied Suicide and Intervention Skills Training program, ASIST, currently utilised by the department. The reforms announced include: greater promotion of ASIST through an increase in its advertising and marketing budget; more information and training sessions to be held in rural and regional areas; increased financial assistance for participants in order to encourage higher participation; and an expansion of the suite of programs to be offered by assist trainers. To help facilitate these reforms and to ensure the long-term viability of this program, a Rudd Labor government will bring the ASIST program formally under the control of the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service. The governance of the program will remain independent of the department and under the control and direction of the veterans community through the stewardship of the VVCS national advisory committee. In order to achieve these reforms, Labor will provide new and additional funding of $1 million over four years. Other costs will be absorbed within current funding for the department.

Labor’s proposal keeps the control of ASIST with the ex-service community while relieving them of the responsibility of resourcing this service. It will also expand a worthwhile program that has been underresourced for far too long. It is these types of strong, proactive measures that we need to combat the problems of suicide among veterans and their families. It is these types of measures that were sadly lacking in the budget.

It is over a week ago that I made that announcement. It is over a week ago that I made it clear that Labor’s commitment was there. The reaction from within the veterans community has been support—strong support—right across the board again. The sorts of groups who actually have an interest in this issue, because it is dealing with the health of their members, have said that this is exactly what needs to be done. This is something that has also been discussed with the department, as I understand it, over quite some time and yet we still have silence from the government.

The fact of the matter is that action is needed here because, if action does not occur, this particular program is in danger of falling over and that would be a tragedy in itself. Its implications for veterans and the wider veterans community would in fact be incredibly serious. I urge the government again to pick up on what we have done, to take the initiative that we have taken and move on it to ensure that the sorts of services that are required to deal with a very serious issue within the veterans community are actually dealt with here and now before it is too late for many people who might use these services.

In the time that is remaining to me, I would also like to pick up on a couple of other points regarding issues in the veterans community—a couple of things that the minister raised over time. One issue that has come up in the last 12 months is the question of nuclear veterans. The situation with nuclear veterans is that a study was finalised and the results of that study were released, and then the government responded with legislation and policy to deal with those issues.

Without going through the detail, the circumstances were that, although there had been a recommendation as part of the Clarke review for hazardous, non-warlike service for veterans of the nuclear tests, the government rejected that. What came down in the end was a situation of granting access for participants to treatment of any cancer that they may have contracted since that time.

That in itself was welcomed and Labor supported that measure, but it was not actually what the nuclear veterans were looking for and it was not actually what this minister had in the past supported. As part of the Clarke review, the minister as a backbencher wrote to the Clarke review and said:

Nuclear veterans’ service should be declared as Hazardous Service by the Review of Veterans’ Entitlement (Clarke Review), as Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel involved in the British atomic tests in Australia were placed in a life threatening environment. Only now are they and the community experiencing the true consequences of their service, in particular, the devastating impact of exposure on the health and wellbeing of our veterans.

A high proportion of our veterans involved in the atomic tests have experienced conditions attributed to their exposure to radiation, with many losing their lives.

His letter further said:

Veterans involved in British Atomic tests and mine clearance exercises deserve to be recognised as having carried out Hazardous Service. Although the battlefield may be less conventional the threat to life and the danger to which our veterans were exposed amount to an active deployment into harms way.

This issue was raised with the minister. The fact is that he, quite legitimately, as a backbencher, went forth and argued to a review for a particular policy. But, as the minister, when he was making a decision on that issue, he chose not to follow his own earlier advice that was part of his letter and was stated very clearly to the Clarke review. The interesting thing is that the Clarke review acted in line with that letter and came down with that particular policy option, but the government at the time rejected it. As people will remember, back at that time the government had provided a paltry response to the initial recommendations of the Clarke review. In fact they rejected large numbers of them and there was a backbench revolt—which, as I understand it, the minister may well have been involved in in terms of supporting veterans. If he was, as has been reported, I congratulate him for it. The fact of the matter is that he wrote a letter and stated a position, but when he was in a position to act upon it he did not.

In response, the minister has said: ‘Only members of the coalition actually made submissions to the Clarke review. However, one member of the Labor Party, who is now no longer a member of parliament, also made a submission.’ I just want to get on the record in the last few seconds I have left the nature of those submissions. I have no problem with those members making submissions and I wish them all the best with it, but I think the nature of those submissions needs to be understood. Tony Abbott forwarded a constituent letter as a submission with a covering fax. The member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, forwarded a constituent letter with a ‘with compliments’ slip. The member for Gilmore wrote on behalf of a constituent. Senator Ross Lightfoot forwarded a constituent letter without any covering letter. The member for Gippsland wrote on behalf of some of his constituents. Geoff Prosser, the member for Forrest in Western Australia, made two submissions on behalf of constituents. I congratulate them for making those submissions. But, in fact, overwhelmingly, those submissions were just passing on information provided to them by constituents. (Time expired)

See this speech in context