Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 and I want to applaud the government for the passage of this legislation. Clearly, we support the proposals within it. When veterans pass away, it is vital for surviving partners to be assisted and treated with compassion and sympathy. The bereavement payment, which is made up of 14 weeks of the partner's income support payment, is to assist the surviving partner with costs following that death.

As we know, all families need a period of time to adjust their finances in such circumstances. However, surviving partners who have access often receive an overpayment of the veteran's income payments that continue after the passing. Sadly, it is a flaw in the system. This can lead to a debt being raised and add to the grieving and anxiety of the surviving partner and their family. As a result of this legislation, when this happens, DVA will now reduce the bereavement payment by the amount the veteran's partner has received since they passed away. The intention of recouping the cost in this fashion is to minimise unnecessary interactions with DVA during such a difficult time. The amendment will streamline the administrative processes. It's a straightforward amendment with no additional cost, and we're very pleased to be able to support it, and I commend the minister, the member for Gippsland, for bringing this piece of legislation forward.

Like me, I think that the member for Gippsland would support the amendment being proposed by the shadow minister, which reads:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes with concern that the Government has undermined veterans' access to health services".

I know in his heart of hearts that the member for Gippsland would support this amendment but simply won't, clearly, because it would undermine the policies which were introduced in 2014 by his government to freeze indexation on Medicare payments. The impact of that Medicare freeze has a direct correlation to veterans' access to services.

Currently—as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I'm sure the minister knows—all veterans have been granted access to allied and mental health services for mental health conditions, cancer and pulmonary tuberculosis through the nonliability healthcare policy. Some veterans have additional access through white cards and gold cards for their assessed conditions. As part of accessing these services, psychologists and other clinicians are paid by the government through the Department of Veterans' Affairs with a set fee with no gap to be paid by the veteran. This fee, paid by DVA, is tied to the Medicare rebate and indexed in line with the Medicare rebate. However, as there's been no indexation on Medicare rebates since 2014, there have been no corresponding increase in DVA rebates paid to the health professionals assisting our veterans.

We heard evidence of this last week in a defence committee hearing in Adelaide which is looking at the transition of Defence Force personnel to civilian life and talking about people being veterans whilst they're in service and how they're being cared for post-service. This indexation freeze has led to a situation where, as the rebate is no longer covering the cost of medical treatment and because our veterans cannot be charged a gap payment, sadly and ashamedly, some medical and allied health professionals have had no choice but to turn DVA clients away. I heard this from the College of Psychiatrists in evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in a hearing in Melbourne last week. It was made very clear that there are people being turned away from specialist services because of the fee. These are people who may well require important interventions for mental health issues, and now we've got to the state where medical practitioners and others who are entitled to charge under the Medicare schedule are turning veterans away or putting them at the bottom of their lists. They are not serving veterans.

I wonder if that's been in the front of mind of the Minister for Health or indeed the Prime Minister. After all, the Prime Minister would know about this. I'm sure that, as he churned through the budget papers as Treasurer, he would have seen this particular item and no doubt would have said, 'Well, this is a saving against the budget, against Medicare, something we will support.'

Well, Prime Minister, I would say to you: here's your chance to show your bona fides for the veteran community. Show your bona fides by going back to the cabinet table and talking to your now Treasurer and your health minister and, with the submission coming from the Department of Veterans' Affairs through the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, make a change to this ridiculous rule. Just get over the freeze, basically. Index the Medicare fee schedule as it should be indexed and ensure that veterans who properly need access to services can get access to services whether or not they can afford them. This is an issue which strikes at the very heart of our claimed support for veterans in this place.

A number of submissions to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into compensation and rehabilitation for veterans have seen some people very critical of the impact of what I've just referred to. The Prime Minister's own Prime Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans' Mental Health said in their submission:

It would appear there is a limited, but perhaps increasing, number of medical specialists turning our veterans away once they become aware they are DVA clients. The Council understands the concern regarding accepting DVA clients stems from the fact that MBS fees have been frozen for many years.

Well, isn't that a shame job? You'd think, would you not, that the government would say: 'Hang on, this is not good. We're happy to wrap ourselves in the flag and stand next to veterans and say how well we support them, but once we flip the page we see that, as a result of the Medicare freeze, now DVA clients are potentially missing out on access to services.' The Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service National Advisory Committee said:

The remuneration gap between seeing veterans versus private patients from the general community or Defence members is now so significant that clinical providers are prioritising other clients over DVA referrals. In some cases, providers are refusing to accept clients with DVA white or gold cards because of the poor remuneration offered.

It's a bit hard to understand how they could put that position forward. Unless they're on the bones of their backside—and not too many of these health professionals are, I have to say—you'd think they'd make sure in any event that these people who require access to services would get access to services. But clearly that's not their interest, because they're driven by the fee rather than the service.

These concerns confirm those raised by the Australian Medical Association over 18 months ago, following a survey of their members which found that almost 30 per cent of clinicians are no longer committed to treating veterans and are turning them away and that only 44 per cent of respondents would continue seeing veterans if the freeze were to continue. There are a couple of issues which arise from this, one of which is a standard of care. How can we guarantee that veterans are getting the quality of service they need to address their health needs when they're being forced to go to the lender of last resort, if you like? I think there is a problem here which is being swept under the carpet and ignored.

Whilst those opposite may protest that it's not their fault, it is their fault. They made the budget decision in 2014. Remember who the Prime Minister was then? It was the architect of the shenanigans that went on here a fortnight ago. He's still in this place. Perhaps he could gee-up the Prime Minister now he's been given a job as an envoy, God forbid, and say to the Prime Minister: 'Hang on, it's probably not a good thing to continue with this. Let's address this Medicare freeze issue.' And I would hope—and I'm sure he would—that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs would be attempting to counsel the government about the impact of this freeze on the treatment of our veterans.

It's not appropriate. It's not fair and it's something we shouldn't do. But somehow or another there is a view on that side of the parliament that this is acceptable. Well, I'd like them to justify how acceptable it is and explain to us—to the Australian community, particularly the veteran community—why it is acceptable that 56 per cent of respondents to an AMA survey say they would no longer service veterans because of this Medicare freeze. You don't have to be Einstein to work out the impact of that. We see, day in day out, people coming into this place and saying how we should be committed to our veterans, both serving and non-serving—those who have passed out of uniform and are now clients of DVA. It's not good enough.

I want to say to the government: we would support you to lift this freeze and address the question in a proper manner. But I'll bet that when we come to the vote on this amendment we'll get no support from the government. If those opposite don't give us support for the amendment, it will say to us that they think it's okay that veterans are unable to access services because of cost. A right which veterans have is effectively being taken away from them because of a budget decision by this government. It's tawdry. It's wrong. It shouldn't be, but it is. The government have an opportunity to fix it, but they won't. And the people who will suffer are those veterans who have served this nation proudly in our uniform. We have an obligation to these people and their families; we all admit it here. We say it all the time. But, by maintaining this freeze, those opposite are saying they only accept that obligation as a partial obligation. They don't see it as we on this side of the House see it—as the need to make sure that veterans have access to the health services they properly require at no cost to them.

See this speech in context