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

Indeed, and this was the case for many. These are very rough figures, but to give you some idea—and it depends on who you talk to—about a million Australians were in uniform in World War II. I have heard figures of just under a million; I have heard figures of about 1.1 million. The split between those who served overseas, and therefore satisfy the requirements of qualifying service, and those who stayed in Australia is roughly fifty-fifty. I do not have an absolutely firm figure, but it is in the region of half a million people.

The issue is that, in the situation the country faced at that time, the entire country played a very active role. Many fought overseas; many were prepared to fight and were here in Australia to defend our country. We do not in any way, in my view, try and separate the valour, the courage and the commitment of those who served their country at that time. That has never been the intention of governments of any persuasion over the last 60-plus years since World War II occurred. What governments have done, basically back to the time after World War I—since the modern repatriation system was put in place, which is now approaching its 100th birthday—is look to the question of causality and the actual consequences of involvement in conflicts faced by people who wore uniforms and were part of our forces. What we have tried to do overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis is ensure that, if there are impacts on people as a result of their service, they are supported and compensated for that. We do not always get it right and often we are in situations where, over time, there is a better realisation of the actual impacts, and in those circumstances adjustments are made to the system. Sadly and tragically, that often means that those changes occur a long time after the event, and on occasions the support that is provided is such that you can say, ‘It has been too little and too late.’ That is an unfortunate aspect of the way the system has operated on occasions.

Sadly and tragically, that means that those changes occur often a long time after the event and in a situation where on occasions the support that is provided is such that for many you can look at it and say it has been too little and too late. That is an unfortunate aspect of the way the system has operated on occasions. I argue very strongly that there has also been a very beneficial element to it in terms of the nature of the standards of proof that are applied in allowing people to qualify for various levels of support and for recognising that benefit of the doubt, particularly for those who have served in a forward area.

The concept of qualifying service itself dates back to that period after World War I. There have been a number of considerations of the issue of, if you like, what people actually faced rather than the question of what they were prepared to face. That is why I say very much it goes away from the question of the courage of those who volunteered, because they all were courageous in volunteering. It goes to the question of what was the impact of that volunteering given the question of where they were serving at the end of the day. There have been studies that have shown back in the 1930s that if people served in a forward area and faced a hostile enemy then there is certainly evidence to suggest that there were almost indefinable or unquantifiable health impacts for those in that situation. What that has meant is that that ought to be allowed to be part of what you consider when you set up your beneficial system. It goes to a thing called the burnt-out digger effect, which was established in the 1940s and was the basis for the establishment of the service pension, which again is a qualifying service entitlement. With the service pension you access it five years earlier than the age pension, which is effectively recognition of the fact that your life expectancy may well have been impacted upon by the nature of the service that you gave.

The problem that the member for New England highlighted about the inconsistencies with respect to what you may have faced in Australia versus what you may have faced depending on where you served overseas is acknowledged. There is no question that there are, in my view, some interesting elements to the way that has developed over time. In order to be beneficial, governments have taken the view that you do not take things off people in those circumstances where they have been granted them and you try and be as open and as fair as you can be around the question of how people do qualify. But the underlying premise has been that question about incurred danger, that question about facing actual danger from hostile forces of an enemy. That has been the basis of the system as it has gone through. I note we have got two former ministers in the chamber. I acknowledge the member for Dunkley and the member for Maranoa, and the shadow minister as well. We have all had cases come across our desks where I am sure we have faced real questions about the decision that we take. But we understand why the legislation is set up in that way. Although I sometimes see cases where I wish I had the discretion to do something else, I understand that if you start meddling with those underlying elements of the system you in fact endanger the system as a whole, which is not something that really you can do.

I do not want to get into the question about cost because I do not think this is an issue which should be viewed in that light. But as the member for New England has raised it I do have to make a couple of points in relation to that. According to the records and the advice from my department, the average cost for a gold card this year will be around the $16,000 mark, $16,000 or $16,500. That is when you take the number of gold cards that we provide and the amount of expenditure on health care provision to those people. That has been rising significantly in recent years because we are, as the member pointed out, losing this generation at an incredibly advancing rate given their advanced years but also the health care costs they face at that time of their life are significantly above the average. Studies have been done which show that in the last couple of years of someone’s life if they are of an advanced age the health care costs can go into the hundreds of thousands, given the nature of the requirements often for emergency care, emergency hospitalisation and emergency surgery. So when we look at that average cost we also need to recognise the fact that the actual costs for people in that generation and that age group are significantly higher. So, although I do not think it should be seen substantially as a cost issue, there are actually costs to the budget in terms of making those decisions.

Historically, when you look back at what happened here, sometimes arguments are put that adjustments were made to the system, for example in the early 1970s to extend gold card qualifying service in effect and therefore healthcare access, which these days is a gold card, to all World War I veterans, including those who did not go. The argument is that it has been so many more years after World War II since that time that you ought to make the move and go down that same track. It does miss a couple of points. For one thing, back at that time we did not have the comprehensive healthcare system that we have these days, so the question of what was provided in terms of, for want of a better word, the public system at that stage compared to what is now provided through the systems that we have in place is quite different. I think that is an important part of the nature of why those sorts of questions were addressed. Also, at that time we had a repatriation hospital system which had the capacity to absorb those veterans as part of what was provided. We now operate a very different system with different implications for the way it is costed and the way it actually operates.

But the point I want to make sure the House is clear on—and I know it is a point that both sides of the House agree on—is that we value the service of all of our veterans and war widows. We know that all of them gave what they could. Many of them paid a terrible price, some at the time and some since, and we value that service. But the nature of the benefits system that we operate and have operated over almost the past century relates to the question of problems directly related to service or, in the case of qualifying service, a recognition that although elements of that are intangible they are real and ought to be considered in deciding what support to provide in the circumstances. This does produce, on occasion, inconsistencies. There are, on occasion, cases where, as a decision maker, you wish you could do something more. But overall the system has served the country well. In international terms it is no doubt a system which is the envy of other parts of the world. We have to work on improving it, and we should always be working to improve it, but we should also recognise that it is a system that has underlying components that should be valued and maintained.

See this speech in context