Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I say at the outset that the coalition will be supporting the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill. I would like to acknowledge the presence of the minister in the chamber today as well and make this simple point: wherever possible, the coalition will follow a principle of bipartisanship on issues impacting our veterans and their families. That's a longstanding principle, I think, on both sides of the chamber, in fact, that, where possible, the major parties in this place have worked together to try to improve the system of support for veterans and their families. I encourage the government to continue to work with the opposition in that regard and in that spirit going forward.

Like the Labor Party, as the previous speaker indicated, we believe, on this side of the House, that we have a proud record in terms of working to reform the system of support for veterans and their families. While in office, the coalition parties worked diligently with the Department of Veterans' Affairs on a wide range of reforms to improve the system and make it fit for purpose for the modern-day veterans.

One of the challenges in this portfolio, in this space, is acknowledging that the needs of different generations of veterans are very different. It's very tempting, when you see our men and women in uniform, to think that they're all the same. They kind of look the same in their different uniforms of Navy, Army and Air Force, but beating beneath the surface of the uniform is a heart and a soul of an individual person who may have different needs when they leave the Defence Force. Making sure that our system of support is fit for purpose for all generations of veterans is one of the critical challenges facing this chamber and this government and that has faced previous governments. I want to commend the minister for his endeavours in that regard.

We recognise, on this side of the House—as the minister himself has recognised on many occasions—that more needs to be done to make the system fit for purpose for our modern veterans in particular. During our time in government, the coalition released what was known as the veterans covenant. There is an important line in the veterans covenants that says:

For what they have done, this we will do.

That goes beyond just saying, 'Thank you for your service,' on Anzac Day or Remembrance Day. 'For what they have done, this we will do,' is a commitment that we make to the men and women of Australia who haven't served in uniform. It's a commitment that we make that we will support them in and after their service. It's timely that we have this conversation and debate today because, more and more, there is a narrative in the community that military service inevitably results in a person being broken or busted, and it's simply not true.

Just this week in parliament, the Prime Minister's National Veteran Employment Awards were hosted in the Great Hall. It was a celebration of veterans who have served our nation with distinction, transitioned well and then brought their skills to bear in the civilian environment. It's so critical that we challenge this narrative that military service inherently results in a person having long-term problems for life.

There is no doubt that the unique nature of military service exposes people to risk every day—during training or deployment. But, equally, we have an obligation under this covenant—'For what they have done, this we will do'—to make sure that we recruit well, train them well and give them the equipment they need to do their job well and to make sure that, when they deploy, they are properly supported and that, when they transition, they transition in the best possible shape to go on and lead fulfilling lives in the civilian environment.

What the veteran employment awards do is celebrate those successes and recognise that, on transition, so many of our veterans go on to make an enormous contribution to our wider community. This is a critical point because the skills are transferable. The skills that our men and women in uniform learn in leadership, teamwork and problem solving are transferable to civilian life. Our message to Australian employers in the private sector is: Why wouldn't you want to employ a veteran? Why wouldn't you want those skills in your business? That message has to be reinforced as much as it possibly can.

In the presence of the minister, it's good to reflect on the role he and I have shared. Being the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has been, without doubt, the highlight of my time in this place. While I served in more senior roles in cabinet with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport role, the role in veterans' affairs is deeply personal. It is a role where you get to make a difference in people's lives with the decisions you make. It gets to the point where you're actually dealing with individuals and working with the secretary of your department and senior DVA staff to achieve outcomes which make a real difference in people's lives.

I was very fortunate during my time in the role to work with Liz Cosson, who has since retired. Liz worked tirelessly as the secretary of the department to reform the Department of Veterans' Affairs by making some steps forward in reducing the complexity of issues, particularly around claims, but also in ensuring that the benefits available to veterans were well advertised so that veterans knew support was available if and when they needed it.

I say to the minister that I recognise that, when it comes to reform, all the easy stuff has probably been done. Everything now is hard. Everything in politics today around reform and making changes is difficult. But the goal of having a system which is easier to navigate and doesn't disenfranchise veterans and their families is a goal well worth pursuing, and I encourage him and the government in those endeavours.

Equally, I encourage the volunteers—the ex-service organisations, the people who care enough about our veteran community to be bothered to join their RSL or other ex-service organisation—to get involved in advocacy and support through practical programs. The work you're doing is deeply appreciated by the members in this place. I commit myself and the opposition to work as much as we possibly can in a collaborative way to address the challenges that we know still exist, particularly as the minister and the government seek to implement the findings of the royal commission.

So, again, we do need to challenge the narrative that our veterans are all broken and busted. If we feed them a diet of helplessness and hopelessness, it reduces our capacity to tackle the big issue in this place—the issue of suicide. There is no acceptable level of suicide in our community and there is certainly no acceptable level of suicide when it comes to our veteran community. We know that too many veterans are taking their own lives, and there are complex reasons for that. There are a range of factors which play into that horrible decision, that lack of hope, which results in a person taking their own life. But there is more we can do in this place and in the community on a daily basis, and the coalition certainly commits itself to working with the minister as we strive to reduce the level of suicide in our veteran community to zero.

This bill makes the technical and administrative updates needed to prepare for the start of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025, or the VETS Act, as it is colloquially referred to. The coalition supported the VETS Act when it passed parliament earlier this year because it delivers on what we hope will be a simplification of the veterans' compensation and rehabilitation system, which was recommended by the royal commission. Over a period of a few years, we worked to try to simplify and harmonise the three existing acts. I've never been engaged in any other area of public policy where a person seeking a benefit from the government is required to have an advocate to navigate their way through the system. The system is too complex, and the complexity came about, I think, for very well-meaning reasons. I think every generation of minister who took on this role wanted to do something more to support our veterans, and we ended up having three very complex acts to the point where one veteran could have injuries to different parts of their body eligible for a benefit under different acts if they'd served over a longer period of time. So it is quite a cumbersome system. It causes frustration. It causes delays. I think harmonisation is a goal well worth pursuing, and I commend the government and the department for working towards having, from 1 July 2026, a single piece of legislation for all new claims for compensation and rehabilitation. It will—and I say this touching wood!—hopefully make the system easier for our veterans and reduce the need for advocates to try and navigate the system that we have today. We don't want to see any veterans losing any entitlements in the process.

The legislation today is not a new policy proposal; it's building on the existing work that the government did earlier this year with the VETS Act. It provides the guarantee—and this is important—that veterans with existing claims under VEA or DRCA will keep every right-of-review option they currently have. We are reassured by the briefing we received from the minister's office that nothing will be taken away from veterans in that regard. It also gives the department and the Repatriation Commission the powers they need to continue making decisions during the transition so veterans aren't left in limbo while the new system is put in place. So this is, by any definition, a non-controversial piece of legislation, as it doesn't cut or alter a single payment or benefit. It simply makes sure that what parliament already passed in the VETS Act can operate as intended in the future.

In relation to the broader challenges facing our veteran community, I commend this legislation because I actually believe it builds on the coalition's record in government and the direction we were seeking to take under the previous secretary. I think there is an evolution here, rather than a revolution, and we are seeing constant improvement in trying to reduce the time taken to process claims and also in ensuring that veterans know where to go for help if they need it and getting that help to flow as quickly as possible.

During our time in government, the coalition delivered on average more than $11 billion per year in support for veterans and their families. We need to keep working to dispel the myth amongst some people that help is not available, because help is available. Help is available for our veterans and their families if they know where to seek it, so we encourage people to seek help in that regard. We also established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide, recognising the urgent need for transparency, accountability and reform in the system.

In government, the coalition introduced and passed the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Act of 2019 and the accompanying veterans' covenant, veteran card and lapel pin, ensuring national recognition for service and sacrifice. That may seem like a small change, but the lapel pin has given many of our veterans a capacity to wear proudly on a daily basis the same sorts of pins that members of the House of Representatives wear when they come to work. I've seen that lapel pin worn in offices across Australia over the last five years. We have people in our country who are fortunate enough and have worked hard enough to receive an Order of Australia or some other recognition. The veteran lapel pin is just one way to recognise that a person has contributed something to our nation while wearing the uniform. So I encourage veterans to wear the pin if they're comfortable doing so.

In government, we provided free, non-liability mental health care for any veteran who had completed at least one day of full-time service, which removed the barriers to early support and recovery. We also sought to expand and modernise Open Arms, the veterans and families counselling service, and ensure it remained fit for purpose and accessible to all those who needed it. One of the key features it performed was to provide people with lived experience to work with our veterans. Open Arms having staff members with lived experience has made it far more effective in recent years.

One program which I'm particularly proud of and somewhat obsessed with—the minister probably thinks—is the Psychiatric Assistance Dog Program, which was an initiative that took a bit of convincing through the finance department. One day, if I ever bother to write a book, I will cover that chapter with some degree of glee—how we may have pulled the wool over the eyes of finance for once in our lives. The program provided Australians who were eligible with tailored, life-changing therapy dogs. The program, from the feedback I've received from veterans, has probably been in my time in this place one of the most personally rewarding.

I have received messages and cards, sometimes from veterans but often from their partners, that explain how having a therapy dog has changed their lives, how having a therapy dog has meant that their veteran partner was now able to take the kids out for a walk to the playground, and how having a therapy dog has meant that their veteran partner now goes shopping or to a restaurant with them. These are things that we take for granted when we have good mental health. We have found life-changing therapy through the Psychiatric Assistance Dog Program, which has also meant there is less dependence on pharmaceuticals and a reduction in alcohol consumption. These are anecdotes; I acknowledge that. I'd like to see more work done in that regard to have the evidence based research to see exactly how this program is working going forward, and whether we can commit more funding to it and whether we need to do more work in that area.

How these dogs are changing lives, I think, is something that we need to perhaps understand, because there are other therapies that came forward during my time in the role where I couldn't convince the bureaucrats to commit money to, but I think they would inevitably do so in the future. There are other emerging therapies in areas like equine therapy, art therapy, music therapy and surf therapy. There are a whole range of things in this space which work for individuals beyond the Psychiatric Assistance Dog Program. So I think there's some more work we can do in terms of research but also understanding what works for individual veterans and being willing to run trials and pilot programs to ensure that we can help more veterans into the future—particularly our younger veterans, who may well respond to different treatments or therapies in comparison to the older cohorts.

Also in government, we started the Veteran Wellbeing Centre Program. The first six veteran wellbeing centres were initiated by the coalition, and I know the minister has built on the wellbeing centres across the country since his time in the role. We established the Prime Minister's National Veteran Employment Awards, which I spoke about previously, and it's good to see it continue to celebrate the successes of our veterans on transition. Interestingly, we created a role which, I think, was the brainchild of Secretary Cosson, which was the veterans family advocate role. Ensuring that the voices of families were heard in every major policy decision was a deliberate act of the previous government. Our first veterans family advocate was a lady by the name of Gwen Cherne. Gwen has just retired from her role and has moved on to other duties. Gwen did an outstanding job as the veterans family advocate. She had experience as a military partner but also as the mother of a serving member. Her lived experience was crucial to her being accepted by the veteran community and the families. She provided some unique insights for the secretary and me during her time in the role.

I'm pleased to see the new veteran family advocate, Annabelle Wilson, start in the role. I've had the chance to meet with Annabelle on two occasions. She's an impressive young lady, who I think will build on the legacy of Gwen Cherne. I think that Annabelle, again, has the capacity to help the government, help the department and help the minister. She has insights there that I think will be very useful. One of the strongest features of both Gwen and Annabelle is they recognise that parts of DVA are still broken. But, rather than get angry and throw bombs from outside the tent, they've been prepared to get inside the tent and try and fix it. So I commend not only Gwen for her work in the past but also Annabelle for taking on what is a challenging role. It's a high-profile, challenging role, and I wish her every success in taking it on.

The previous government also committed $500 million to the Australian War Memorial redevelopment, which will ensure the stories of contemporary veterans are told with the respect and visibility they deserve. That was also somewhat contentious at the time, but, I must say, the director, Matt Anderson, carrying on the work of Brendan Nelson, has continued to ensure that the War Memorial is not a place where we glorify war; it is a place where we respectfully recognise and commemorate the men and women who have given their lives to allow us to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy today.

Those 102,000 names on the roll of honour are a reminder to us all that the price of our freedom has been paid with the blood of previous generations. To have that War Memorial be in a better position now to tell the stories of the modern generation of servicemen and women is so important not only for their mental wellbeing but also for our nation to understand that service, so I don't quibble for a second the $500 million that has gone into that program. I stress in making that point that not a cent of that $500 million came out of the DVA budget. That was new funding allocated by Treasury. It did not come at the expense of our veterans, but that $500 million has ensured that the War Memorial for decades and decades and decades to come will be in a better position to tell the story of the men and women who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Timor Leste, Solomon Islands—you name it.

More recent conflicts and peacekeeping missions will be properly recognised in the redeveloped Australian War Memorial. I congratulate Matt Anderson for the work his team does. I pass onto them our respect and our appreciation for the way they welcome members of parliament to attend the last post ceremony, to attend commemorative events. They are always run incredibly professionally with a sombre but respectful mood. I congratulate Matt on the work he is doing in that regard and I look forward to the finalisation of the War Memorial redevelopment.

The previous government also established the Joint Transition Authority, which is important in holding Defence to account for supporting members from their admission through to their civilian life. There is more to be done there. As I remarked earlier, all the easy stuff is done. The Joint Transition Authority and the work on transition is unfinished business. We still need to make sure our veterans, when they are leaving Defence, are in the best possible shape—physically, emotionally and financially—to take on their next posting in life in the civilian world. We are still getting it wrong on transition too many times, so I encourage the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to keep up the work in that regard. We have to ensure that if we are going to be consistent with the covenant of 'For what they have done, this we will do' then we have to ensure that transition to civilian life is as smooth as possible and that we give them every chance of success as they take up their next role in our community.

The previous government delivered provisional access to medical treatment. I think the government should ensure that program continues. It allows veterans to continue to receive health care while their claims are being assessed. We have increased the fees for health professionals treating our veterans, which helps to sustain access to quality health care under the DVA system. But again, since our time in office, the gap between the payments received for the treating of veterans compared to treating other clients has widened again. It is a challenge for our government; it is a challenge for this government. That gap becomes a disincentive for our health professionals to actually treat veterans. We have to find a way to close the gap because the giant in the room of the care economy and the NDIS is paying at a higher rate to see clients than what DVA currently offers. It is not offered as a criticism of the minister or the government because the gap was there. When we left government, we had some step-up payments to try and narrow the gap to make it more attractive to health professionals to treat our veterans but the gap is still there and it is becoming a problem again. I say to DVA: for god's sake, try to reduce the paperwork because the allied health professionals and GPs are all saying the same thing—'We are busy people. We cannot spend all day filling out your paperwork, so try and find ways to minimise the paperwork and make it more attractive for our health professionals to treat our veterans when required.'

In government, we did something in 2021 which I think will be more helpful to this minister and future ministers than it necessarily was to me at the time. We asked a question in the census about whether they had ever served in the Australian Defence Force. It came about because basically we had no idea how many veterans we had in Australia. Unless someone had served and then registered with DVA, we as a government had no idea how many veterans we really had. It turned out we had, I think, around 600,000 at the time, and that data will help the minister in terms of targeting support measures to regional hotspots, or places where we know there are a large cohorts of veterans, and will make sure that the limited resources we have can be directed in the most appropriate way.

There is more to be done. I acknowledge that this bill here today and the VETS Act are important, but there's more to be done. We are going to continue to monitor closely the government's claims around claims processing times because we are hearing different reports from our veterans on the ground in terms of whether there has been a shifting of the claims into a new basket or there has actually been a reduction in the time taken to process claims. The government must continue to act, and act faster, on the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and to the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance I say give the minister the resources he needs to implement the findings of that royal commission. It's one thing to have a royal commission, but the history of royal commissions in this country is that the royal commission is held, the recommendations come in and then they sit there and sit there and sit there. Some of those recommendations will require additional resources for the veterans portfolio, and I urge the Treasurer and the finance minister to act quickly in that regard. Funding for veterans and families hubs has not been guaranteed, and it's something that veterans are coming to us and raising concerns about—whether they will be able to operate those hubs in the future.

In conclusion, while I started with the point that, wherever possible, the coalition adopts the principle of bipartisanship in relation to matters involving our veterans and the Australian Defence Force, the government made a mistake with the mean spirited bill to try and address what they thought were shortcomings in the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. Mistakes were made from the very moment that Defence did not consult. I actually don't blame the minister for what followed in the months after that, because I think he was sold a pup from day one. Defence did not consult with the tribunal itself. An independent statutory authority was established by the Labor Party in 2011 to provide a review function for the greatest acts of heroism our nation has ever seen, and the defence department didn't consult with the highly skilled and highly respected individuals on that tribunal to see what changes would be palatable, what changes were worth pursuing and, more importantly, what changes were completely unsellable to the Australian public.

It was mean spirited from day one for Defence to try to impose a 20-year time limit on the review of actions by our Australian Defence Force personnel. It was also mean spirited from day one to seek to abolish the right of current Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans to seek a review unless they fit within a very tight descriptor provided by Defence itself. I say to the government, in the spirit of bipartisanship and in seeking to find in-principle agreement wherever possible on veterans and defence matters, we should have been consulted earlier in the process, the tribunal should have been consulted and ex-service organisations should have been consulted. We then would never have had the mess that we've had over the last three months, with veterans and Defence Force personnel speaking out angrily about the reform of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal.

There were 75 submissions to the Senate inquiry. How many do you reckon might have been in favour of the changes?

See this speech in context