Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition in opposition supports this bill, the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill. It supports the bill because we want to provide and see a strong ADF. We want to see a strong ADF that retains its members. I think, from memory, the ADF has about an 11 per cent churn—that is, 11 per cent of members drop off each year. And one of the good things about the amendments to this bill is that it will encourage—we hope—members to remain in the ADF. That is very, very important, because it's obviously a lot easier to retain a member than it is to train a member from scratch. The ADF relies on its experienced members, so it makes common sense to be able to provide certain incentives for its members to stay as long as they possibly can. I think the minimum period of service in the ADF is four years—I think that's right.

This bill will amend certain eligibility requirements for this scheme, which provides assistance to members with paying a home loan. We know that members of the ADF move around a lot. They move from base to base every couple of years, and it's often difficult for them to put down roots. We know that many ADF members find it difficult to buy a home whilst they're in service, simply because they are moving around a lot. This bill proposes amending the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008, which provides certain incentives and assistance measures for ADF members to buy a home. That act also provides assistance to members—effectively, it costs them less—to pay for their mortgages. And that's a good thing for the men and women who serve in our uniform to represent this country. Everything that we can do to lighten their load is a good thing.

I won't trouble the chamber too much with the eligibility requirements. I do note that the amendments to the bill are lessening the period for which members are required to serve to be eligible. This actually could have a bit of a perverse outcome. Because if members are able to access the scheme earlier, in some cases in as little as two years, we have some concerns around whether it will actually incentivise ADF members to leave earlier and that would be counterproductive to what we are setting out to do.

One of the other concerns we have is that there appears to have been no real examination of what the cost is going to be. Presumably, because the government is reducing the eligibility periods, more people will become eligible and will take it up, and fair enough. But there's no real insight on the part of the government as to what it's going to cost. Whilst the opposition supports the concept of providing assistance to our ADF members, a responsible government should be able to tell us what this is going to cost and there's very little detail around that. Equally, there's no real detail about whether the government has provided additional assistance to the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

The Department of Veterans' Affairs is going to be administering this scheme. In fact, it does administer the scheme. But with the additional expected uptake, there's been no real measurement or quantification as to the amount of additional work that's going to be needed to be undertaken by DVA officers. This is a concern, because we know all too well that the claims periods currently being undertaken by DVA are too long. We've all heard stories, particularly in the ongoing Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, about the delays experienced by veterans in DVA. If the government are not throwing any additional money to administer this scheme then it's axiomatic that they are going to have to take people away from their existing work to administer this scheme. I have some concerns around that. Perhaps members of the government might want to address in their speeches how the government is going to deal with this issue. Because what we don't want to see—member for Solomon, I'm sure that you agree with me on this—is additional manpower, additional resources being taken away from working through claims of veterans. This is something that the government really should address, because we don't want to see to those waiting periods blow out.

Having said all of that and having said that the opposition supports this bill, I have a number of other concerns. The government have been out there today trumpeting the bill and their support for veterans. But what they give on one hand, they take away with the other. I know that three veterans wellbeing centres were cut from Queensland in the budget announced just two weeks ago—three! They were Mackay, Wide Bay and South East Queensland. The government cut $22.3 million from veterans wellbeing centres. The member for Solomon and all those members opposite who are abreast of these issues should know that my veterans on the Sunshine Coast are up in arms about this. If they want to go to a veterans wellbeing centre, they've got to travel to Ipswich or jump on a plane and go up to Townsville. That is unsatisfactory.

Across the country we're seeing a net reduction of four veterans wellbeing centres that we funded. Three of those are in Queensland, as I said. I'm not quite sure why this government doesn't like Queenslanders—or perhaps veterans in Queensland—but three of the four centres that were cut are in Queensland. If this government was fair dinkum about supporting veterans, as it says it is, then it would restore that $22.3 million in funding to veterans wellbeing centres and it would do it today. I can tell you that veterans in my electorate are up in arms about this. They are very, very, very unhappy with the government on this issue.

One of the other things that I want to use my remaining time to talk about—and this goes to the issue of retaining and attracting ADF personnel—is what I loosely refer to as an Australian equivalent of the American GI bill. I am absolutely passionate about Australia introducing an Australian version of a GI bill. When they transition into civilian life, many ADF members find it difficult to use the skills that they've learnt in the ADF. I'm not suggesting for a second that that happens across the board, but certainly some have issues with transitioning. I believe that the Australian government has an obligation not only to provide assistance to put roofs over veterans' heads but also to educate them. I would like to see an Australian equivalent of a GI bill where Australian veterans are provided financial assistance to study while they are in the ADF—whether it's a law degree or an arts degree or whatever it might be—to give them that successful transition. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context