Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

I firstly acknowledge the contributions to this debate by the members for Fadden, Eden-Monaro, Mitchell, Dawson, Moncrieff and Solomon. I am not so sure about the gratuitous advice which has come from some members of the opposition, and I am a bit concerned about their lack of knowledge about what actually goes on in government and their lack of knowledge of the history of the portfolio of veterans’ affairs.

I heard the member for Fadden being critical of the fact that I hold a number of portfolios. The member for Fadden, for whom I have some respect, should know better than most the significant benefits of having a veterans’ affairs minister and Defence personnel minister in the same portfolio. I say this because he should know that the coalition did it for at least the last four years that they were in office. The member for Fadden needs to reacquaint himself with what happened under the Howard government. Bruce Billson, the member for Dunkley, was the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. Dee-Anne Kelly, a former member of this place, was the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs from October 2004 to January 2007 and was also the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence.

We know, and they know, that the veteran community was also supportive of combining the veterans’ affairs and Defence personnel portfolios for the very obvious reason that ultimately we are dealing with the same group of people. Defence personnel who are currently serving members, serving this nation of ours in Afghanistan, will at some point become veterans, and some may be veterans already in the context of their service. Some may even be receiving entitlements under the veterans’ affairs portfolio as a result of their service, and we need to understand that that relationship between the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Defence is a crucial one. To have the Defence personnel side of the portfolio married to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in ministerial arrangements is good for both portfolios. I would have thought that the member for Fadden would have appreciated that, so I think that the sort of gratuitous advice and comments he made were quite unwarranted.

I might also make observations about the contributions by the members for Mitchell and Moncrieff that widows will have to repay significant amounts of money. That is just factually incorrect. No-one will have a debt as a result of this legislation. No payments will be required to be paid back and this bill simply ensures that widows get their correct entitlements. I would hope that these ill-informed members undertake to go into their communities and tell the truth, not mislead people by making comments which are palpably false. We are used to this from the opposition, because clearly they are not engaged in constructive discussion with government or indeed the community about what is good for this country. They are quite critical of us, and sometimes that might well be warranted, but in this particular instance it is not at all warranted. I would say to them: understand the facts of the matter and make sure that when you espouse your views about legislation such as this you actually deliver the correct interpretation of what the legislation delivers.

I am also a little bit bemused by comments made by members of the opposition about this government’s performance within the veterans’ affairs portfolio. We know that in the 12 years prior to 2007 the former Howard government—the government that these erstwhile members of a potential future government say they have some respect for—did almost nothing in veterans’ affairs. Since 2007 this government has delivered on a wide range of initiatives that benefit the veteran and Defence communities.

The opposition has criticised the government for the so-called delays on releasing the military compensation review. Again—and I know that butter would not melt in their mouths—the truth of it is that this is just an extraordinary comment from a party who refused to even consider reviewing the legislation prior to the 2007 election. Let us be clear: they refused to undertake a review of the legislation prior to the 2007 election. So it is passing cute that they should come into this place and criticise the government for undertaking a review and providing the capacity for people to comment on that review once we have released it, which was done last week.

I say to the opposition: if you think you are running government from the opposition, I have news for you. You are like a pimple on the elephant’s bum. Your impact upon us in terms of this portfolio is zero. We have made successive decisions, including the ones around the War Memorial, which were based on good public policy decision-making processes, including advice from the War Memorial and our own public service, not based on some comments—often hysterical—made by opposition members, including their spokesman on veterans’ affairs. We deliberated clearly on the need to ensure that the War Memorial was appropriately funded. We had discussions with our local members, one of whom is, astoundingly, sitting here next to me and I thank her for being here. It is her duty of course—not to be here with me, but the fact she is here.

See this speech in context