Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I associate myself with those latter words of the member for Lingiari, who points out quite reasonably that those who serve our country and are often very well supported within the defence organisation sometimes experience difficulties as they transition from that warm, soft, comfortable bosom of the defence environment to perhaps more bureaucratic processes in trying to get the support they need. I thank the member for Lingiari for those comments.

I also welcome the opportunity to address the House on the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2014, a bill I have a keen interest in. My interest is founded on over 30 years of service in the Australian Regular Army. Today, I wish in particular to speak to a number of themes which are either explicit or implicit to this important legislation. The first is the inherent rightness legislatively, ethically and morally of this policy; the second is to this bill's refined or improved agility and flexibility; and the third pertains to the bill mirroring to some degree equivalent supporting action that is being undertaken by our closest allies and partners in the area of military rehabilitation and compensation. I will speak first about the inherent rightness of this policy.

That this policy is inherently right for our defence community at this time is, in my view, unquestionable. As the House is keenly aware, Australia has recently concluded its longest ever operational conflict including combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As someone who deployed on Australia's first commitment to Afghanistan in late 2001, I never anticipated that it would continue for some 12 years. Many of the veterans that I see today at Anzac Day and at other military commemorative events are increasingly wearing Afghanistan and Iraq campaign medals. Their comments to me attest to the point that I made in my introduction, that as they have left Defence and moved on to the next journey in their lives, they have at times found it difficult making the transition to sometimes bureaucratic structures in the Department of Veterans Affairs and getting the support that they need. This bill is particularly important in that regard.

What perhaps is most unique and also less widely appreciated about the recent engagements that I mention is the restricted professional demography of the combatants. In this war, all of the Australian casualties have been professional soldiers, as distinct from a mix of professionals and short-term conscripts from the wider Australian community. The latter case has been the norm in the majority of our nation's former wars and military engagements. This has meant that the full burden of the recent global war on terror has been borne by a relatively small professional army with nearly all veterans having been engaged in multiple operational tours. Indeed, some special forces soldiers from either the Special Air Service Regiment—in your home state of Western Australia, Mr Deputy Speaker—or the 2nd Commando Regiment have done as many as 10 separate tours. I have a personal connection to these people. My daughter, Captain Julia Nikolic, returned at the end of last year from her own second operational tour of Afghanistan.

In our nation's past wars most Australians knew a combat veteran personally; very often they were related to one. Now, however, very few Australians outside the closed community of the military know a veteran in the same way. Yes, they might support or admire the military institution per se, but this is very far from the same thing. This point about society's changing connection to the wars that Australia is engaged in became even clearer to me yesterday when I attended, in Launceston, the opening of a major exhibition at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, which was opened by our Governor-General, His Excellency Sir Peter Cosgrove. A notable feature of that exhibition was a display along the railing which had a listing of the towns in Tasmania showing those who had left those towns to fight in the Great War and a numerical indicator of those who had not returned—those who had paid the ultimate sacrifice. It brought home to me in a very personal way this point about how closely Australian wars have touched its population over time. This concentration of military demography has acted to isolate, in more recent times, much of Australia's wider community today from the grisly reality of war. Such separation cannot long endure.

As veterans, some of whom are irrevocably damaged by war, re-enter the mainstream civil community, the effects of their experience may emerge slowly and perhaps even tragically over time. Like the elusive commodity which is 'truth', eventually the effects and related effects of combat, particularly close combat, will emerge in some. Inevitably, some in the civil community will also be affected by this in the future. Regrettably, this is not a prediction. It is a practically anticipated reality. All of our close allies are facing or will soon face the same dilemma in the foreseeable future. Of course this amendment bill will in no way counter or avert this. That train has already long left the station. But, it will do much which is positive and constructive to support those who are affected both directly and indirectly. It may aid their recovery or ameliorate some of the effects and ongoing trauma of their incapacitation, mental anguish or trauma. All of this is important and will remain so long into the future. As an aside, this is but another reminder of what war does to people and what we potentially set in place when we decide to place them in harm's way. We, the members of this parliament, share this immense burden of responsibility. My comments reflect both the potential horror of some aspects of military service and the inherent importance and rightness of this legislation as so essential in its wake.

Let me now speak about how this legislation allows us to become more agile and flexible into the future. This legislation will make future Commonwealth policy in the area of military rehabilitation and compensation more agile and flexible. In particular, the following eight separate features or elements of this amendment bill are thought by the coalition to be especially noteworthy and laudable.

First, the adoption of a new methodology implemented from 1 July 2013—as the previous speaker pointed out—to calculate the amount of permanent impairment compensation that is payable under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act or the MRCA. Second, the application of this new methodology to persons who have an injury or disease already accepted under the Veterans' Entitlements Act or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

Third, appropriate assessment of compensation payable under the MRCA is to include conditions accepted under the VEA or the SRCA to ensure that any compensation paid is assessed on a whole of person basis; fourth, the identification of select parts of this compensation as transitional permanent impairment compensation; fifth, application of the principle of retrospectivity to apply the new methodology resulting from the review of military compensation arrangements in circumstances that are prevented by current legislation; sixth, flexibility to increase the amount of MRCA for some recipients. It should be noted that the retrospective recalculation is being undertaken on the basis that no person would ever be disadvantaged. Seventh, maintenance of current levels of entitlement in the rare event that the new calculation would result in a lesser amount of MRCA; and, finally, removal via parliamentary amendment of former technical barriers that prevent the retrospective recalculation of transitional permanent impairment compensation in certain circumstances. Each and all of these steps will act to improve the practical lives and futures of those who serve or who have served. Indirectly, it will also proffer significant benefit to affected defence families and partners of defence members.

I note that the general thrust of this amendment bill mirrors the concerted efforts which are currently being made by our close allies to support their respective defence and veteran communities. This includes constructive and positive government initiatives in the United States, Britain and Canada—all of which suffered grievously in recent operations in both or either Iraq and Afghanistan. Regrettably, such support has not always been forthcoming in Australia. The inconsistent treatment of defence personnel after the Great War with the ill-conceived soldier settlement scheme and the later national indifference and neglect which occasioned the return of Australian soldiers from Vietnam are but two cases in point.

Blessedly, bipartisan government support of those who serve Australia and her national interests, both at home and abroad, has assisted immeasurably in more recent times. The government is committed to continue to honour the sacrifices of those who serve and to match this intention and commitment with practical action and concrete legislation such as this.

To conclude, on many levels this legislation is the right policy for Australia at this time. It comes not long after the conclusion of our nation's longest ever military engagement and at a juncture when, for perhaps the first time, the full range, longevity and extent of the effects of combat on the whole human being are being recognised and openly discussed as never before. While policy itself can never make up for the loss of life or capacity, it can nevertheless do much materially for those affected by war or military service. This includes both surviving and injured combatants as well as the families and dependents of those killed in the honourable service of our nation. It also includes those whose full injuries are anticipated to emerge or worsen at a future time. This is the hidden or 'iceberg' effect of war, where much of the human damage is hidden below a veneer of individual or collective equanimity.

Finally, though it is comparatively rare in this House, I would like to publicly thank all members in it, regardless of political persuasion or affiliation, for the spirit of bipartisan support and cooperation which has occasioned the approach and debates surrounding current defence personnel and family related issues, including financial entitlements. It is on this note that I have much pleasure in commending the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2014 to the House.

See this speech in context