Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of the Speaker’s panel I have the privilege of listening to many speeches, both here in the Main Committee and also in the House. Whilst some of them are less than interesting, I had the privilege of being here in the Main Committee to hear an absolutely amazing speech by the member for Cowan, Graham Edwards—his speech on this bill. I would recommend it to all members and to the wider public. The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 is not an exceptional bill. It is one where there are minor changes to the veterans affairs act, but it does give those of us who are really interested in veterans affairs an opportunity to speak on issues that we see as relevant to the veteran community. As most of us would know, we have recently had a budget and there have been announcements made in the budget by this government affecting veterans of all ages and of all services. Like all other members and senators, I imagine, I have been bombarded by emails about just how effective these budget measures are and whether they go far enough to actually address some of the concerns.

I think it is incumbent on us who serve in this place to keep veterans issues front and centre and not just raise them at Anzac Day or Remembrance Day on 11 November. I am the oldest member of the Australian Labor Party and I am probably 21 sitting days away from leaving this place. I think sadly the links between politicians and active war service are almost nonexistent. Graham Edwards, as I said, the member for Cowan, soon to depart the House, is I think the only former serviceman in the place. The PM and I are the only members of the House who had fathers who served at Gallipoli and we are joined by Stewart McArthur, the member for Corangamite, as the only members of this place to have fathers also serve on the Western Front. I am not sure how many members of the House had parents serving in subsequent campaigns. They certainly are not all that keen to acknowledge it and raise it in debates on veterans issues. I know I am proudly espousing Dad’s service and what the veterans department has done for him and also Mum, who was a war widow.

I brought along today my photo album, which is rather unusual. Seeing that I am really interested in Dad’s service in the First World War, especially the battle of Fromelles, I was over there on 19 July 2006 for the 90th anniversary, and I visited the cemeteries. As you tour around the Somme area in northern France you see all these little wonderful cemeteries—Rue Petillon, Le Trou Aid Post Cemetery, VC Corner cemetery in the Fromelles area. At the entrance to all these cemeteries there is engraved on a stone plinth: ‘Their name liveth forevermore’. We do pay homage to them. But, once they get home, sadly, they tend to be forgotten. I say that most sincerely.

I would imagine that most members in this place have their share of DVA veterans giving them a bit of a hard time. The ministers whom I have worked with since I have been here include Danna Vale, Bruce Billson, De-Anne Kelly, Con Sciacca—and who can ever forget his Australia Remembers effort in 1995.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A great program.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a great program. Sadly, the momentum has not continued. I want to mention three people. The first one is a war widow, Maree Brownlie. She is my second mum. When my parents left Tasmania to wander around Australia with Dad’s work, Maree was a second mum to me. Her husband, Bob, served in the Second World War as a pilot. Her family is spread around Australia, as many of our families are. Occasionally I get phone calls from her elder son, John, asking, ‘Can you check up on Mum?’  I recently received a phone call saying that Maree had moved out of her house and that she needed extra care. She had moved into a complex; she bought a unit there. She expected DVA to look after her as a war widow. Sadly, DVA have tendered out services for widows, and an organisation in Tasmania called OneCare now have that tender. When I spoke to Helen Watling in DVA in Tasmania, who does a wonderful job, she used the term ‘no liability’. She said: ‘The department don’t have a liability. They have tendered it out to OneCare and it is OneCare’s responsibility.’

The reason John Brownlie rang me about his mum, Maree, was that OneCare had provided some home care for her in her unit and, sadly, this person somehow got her credit card and PIN, went to the south Hobart post office and withdrew some money. Then, foolishly, this person went to the Caltex service station opposite and used the card, not knowing that there was a surveillance camera. I rang DVA and said: ‘Maree, a war widow, has lost $600. What can we do to recompense her? It is a fair amount of money. She is in her eighties. Maybe through some carelessness on her part, she has lost it.’ The response was, ‘No liability; it is OneCare’s problem.’ So I rang OneCare, and asked, ‘What are we going to do?’ OneCare said: ‘She let the person into her house. It is her responsibility.’ So I said to them: ‘There’s an easy way and a hard way. I would hate to stand up in front of a television camera and give you guys a hard time. Think about recompensing Maree that $600.’  And, to their credit, they did. I think it shows that, in some way, ‘their name shall liveth forevermore’ rings a bit hollow.

Jack Sheppard, 94, captured at Crete, was a German POW. Bruce Scott as the minister went to Crete and unveiled a wonderful monument. He made all these effusive statements about how wonderful the service was by Australian servicemen over there, and how tragic it was that so many of them were captured. Jack was a German POW and lived in appalling conditions. Ten years later he has finally got his $25,000. I congratulate the government, but I could not understand—Japanese POWs got it, I think the 13 Korean POWs got it, but we had to wait until this year to give Jack his $25,000.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It took a Liberal government to do it.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know—it is an indictment on us. I apportion the blame to all governments. At 94 what is he going to do with $25,000, suffering from dementia? This next one is a doozey. They had to get a special toilet seat for him and someone in DVA said that his wife cannot use it; it is just for him. This is ridiculous.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re kidding.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not—I am serious. I say it as it is. I brought my cabcharge card in today. I reckon all veterans should get one of these. I imagine the departmental people sitting opposite listening to this and hopefully taking some notes have one. We have them. There is a monthly management thing where there has to be a reconciliation, but Jack still has to get these travel vouchers and get them signed by the doctor. Occasionally you do go to the doctor, who is busy as all get-out and forgets to sign it. So you have to go back to the doctor again to get him to sign it—something as simple as this.

One of the retrograde steps was getting rid of our repat hospitals. I honestly believe that we ought to look seriously at that. They used to get gold-class service when they went to a repat hospital. I know from firsthand experience with Mum and Dad and Dad’s associated colleagues. We now are at the stage where the gold card is worthless. Lots of doctors will not recognise it, which I think is an indictment on the medical profession. Where is the ethos of the Weary Dunlop doctors—service to others before service to self?

Now, sadly, too many veterans are forced to queue with others at the accident and emergency departments in the hospitals. It is 68 years since 1939 and, assuming these guys were 20, they are getting old and their wives are getting old. As I said at the outset, there are not many members of the House who have really close links to these service men and women. It is okay for us on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day to honour them but, as I said, I have given you two examples. I have an even sadder one, a Gulf War veteran, 35, gold card TPI at 31, went to the first Gulf War at 17. He came into my office with associated drug problems because of his medical condition. He told me that the day before he came in to see me his 14-year-old daughter had to drag him off the Midland Highway between Hobart and Launceston because he wanted to get hit by a truck, because it was all too hard for DVA, drug and alcohol and the mental health people in Hobart.

We send these people away with great flag waving and fervour, but when they come back it is very hard. This bloke pulled up his sleeve and there were the slashes on his arm, saying, ‘This is how desperate I am, Harry, for someone to take responsibility.’ He came into my office the day before Easter. So, in my anger I rang up DVA, drug and alcohol and the mental health people in Hobart and they said, ‘We’re all going to have a holiday for five days.’ The world closes down. They hand all the problems back to everybody. But this guy wanted help that day. This was at half past nine in the morning. I feared for his life—not only his but whomever else he might get angry with, because he was angry. He brought his diary in and there were about 30 pages of foolscap where he had written down all the problems he faced. I finally got someone to assume responsibility for this bloke.

I cannot name him because tragically, just after Easter, he was forced to commit four armed robberies to get what he needed in order to survive. I will not say anymore because I have had to make a statement and I will probably be called to the court case. But here we have three: Maree Brownlie, in her 80s; Jack Sheppard, in his mid-90s; and this poor young fellow, aged 35, gold card TPI. They are falling through the hole. I know DVA do wonderful things, but there are some mechanisms that are needed. I cut a bit out of the paper: it is a list of all the seats where the government, in its wisdom, is pouring $249.77 million into road infrastructure. We can find that, but we cannot find some basic money to ensure that not one veteran, not one war widow, falls through the hole. Their name liveth forevermore.

I have been lucky since I have been in this place to be able to visit just about every battlefield. I have been to PNG—Lae, Wewak and Madang. I have made two visits to Gallipoli, where Dad was, and I have been to the Western Front, to Villers, Hamel, Fromelles and Albert. I have been to the Kuwait-Iraq border and seen the mess that was the first Gulf War. Most people here have seen my Iraqi helmet. I have been to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and seen how hard it is up there. I have been to North Africa. I have been to the Marshall Islands; my American uncle, Uncle Bill, served at Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal.

As I said at the outset, these insignificant little bills give us an opportunity to put on the public record some of our concerns. Our party is just as much to blame as the other side. We have had some wonderful ministers. In 2009 it will be 70 years since the last big conflagration. In the year 2007 I just wish that Australia Remembers continues. I know that in all our hearts and minds we honour our veterans, but we have to do it each and every day and find the necessary resources. If I were the minister I would make all the Second World War guys TPIs. I know how hard it was for my dad to get it. He basically wanted it for Mum because he was 20 years older than her and he wanted her to be looked after, because he knew how good the system was when we had repatriation hospitals and they lived in the country, hundreds of kilometres from Melbourne. So I remind people to read Graham’s speech. He said he had the visible scars of war—he has lost his legs. But lots of these people look like, and are, ordinary people who have given exceptional service, and they expect exceptional service to be given back to them. I thank the chamber.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be fair to say I am a fierce advocate of Australia’s veteran community. I was amongst those who pushed the amendments of 2004 to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and I continue to argue for improved benefits for the veteran community. I have great respect for the member for Franklin; he always speaks from the heart. I think we all have pockets of worry with regard to veterans that we would like to see fixed. But there was some good news. Just taking the prisoner of war compensation package, as I remember it we started with the Japanese POWs because of the intense cruelty most of those were subjected to, and to some extent that was true of the Korean ones. I think it was always the government’s intention to move that on to the European ones; I think it was just arranging an order of priority. I take his point that they are all getting older, and I will make that point later in my speech. To have served in the Second World War, other than putting your age up or being a naval midshipman, I think you now have to be a minimum of 79 years of age—most would be 80 or more. They are certainly people who are reaching the age where their fragility starts to take over and vulnerability is there, and we certainly should stay focused on it.

There are two groups that I worry about. One is people who did not actually serve overseas but dismantled ordnance between 1944 and 1947. I used to think that they were one of the most deprived groups. I remember taking the matter up with the department once, and they said to me—and this is not pejorative of the department: ‘Mr Neville, they never faced the enemy.’ Perhaps not in real time, but they sure did because every time they took a spanner to a mine or a torpedo or an unexploded bomb they took their lives in their hands—every single day that they touched a piece of ordnance. I think they faced the enemy and faced extreme danger.

Another group was those Australian troops who were caught in places like Canada and the UK, but particularly Fiji. A lot of young Australians used to work for CSR and companies like that in Fiji. When the Pacific war broke out, they could not get home. Transport was commandeered, so they were stuck in Fiji and joined the British colonial army. If you see photos of them, you would swear that to all intents and purposes they were an Australian unit. They wore the slouch hat and did everything exactly the same as they would have done in Australia, but they were under British command. The interesting thing is that we have this protocol that veterans entitlements come from the country in whose army you served, and a lot of people, the widows of these guys, want to know why they do not get the same benefits. The wives were in Australia while the husbands were in Fiji for the duration of the Pacific war, and they want to know why they cannot get the entitlements.

Because self-government devolved to Fiji after the war, they are now only entitled to Fijian benefits, which are nothing like ours. Perhaps there should be a case for the small group of veterans who were trapped and who served in other Commonwealth countries during the war to receive full Australian entitlements, or their war widows should. That is an anomaly that I will continue to preach in this place because I think it is a case of injustice. They were people who were prepared to serve, and the only reason they did not join the Australian Army, which they would have preferred to join, was that they could not get home.

Going to the bill itself, the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, we move another step towards improving the benefits and the support available to veterans. Although there is always more that we can do to honour our veterans, I believe the bill contains some very positive measures that should be welcomed. The amendments contained in the bill enhance and streamline Veterans’ Affairs’ administrative practices and will bring provisions in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act more into line with those of the Social Security Act 1991. I would like to briefly discuss some of the contents of the bill and perhaps make some more insightful comments about the debt we owe to the diggers for giving us the nation we live in today. I do not think I am too far off the mark by saying that our service men and women gave us the free nation we live in today. I do not just take that as rhetoric; I think it is very much the case. I was contemplating that this morning when I was listening to efforts by the British government to extradite a former KGB agent for allegedly killing someone in the UK with a shot of plutonium, I think it was—a very cruel way to kill someone. I could not help contrasting our way of life, the British and the Australian systems of law and order and good government and honouring extraditions, with some other countries that think they can get away with that sort of thing. I am not necessarily suggesting that Russia will do something improper, but I think people who do those sorts of dreadful things should come to justice.

When I say that these veterans played a part in making us a free nation, I do not just say it as a matter of rhetoric. They gave it to us with a considerable amount of courage, quite often spilling their own blood in the never-ending commitment to serve the nation. We just heard from the member for Franklin about the sacrifice Graham Edwards made for this country and about the efforts he made and continues to make. We are honour bound to acknowledge and repay these veterans for their contribution and to allow them to have a quality of life commensurate with the quality of life other Australians enjoy today. The benefits we have given to carers and pensioners go some way to acknowledging that, but for veterans—or the ones I deal with—the biggest thing in their life concerns medical, paramedical and pharmaceutical services et cetera. Many of their requests for entitlements focus around health. Our gestures may never fully compensate veterans for their experience, but the proposed changes to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act which would be enacted through this bill go some way towards it. I believe in generous and fair benefits for veterans and, although some measures contained in the bill will result in changes to compensation recovery provisions, I encourage the government to consider what other assistance they can provide to veterans.

The bill contains changes to the assets test provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, as well as compensation payments to veterans, and extends certain benefits to eligible veterans. It removes several anomalies between the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Social Security Act which have created confusion in the system. There are many similarities in the provisions of the income support payments under the VEA and the SSA, including rates of payment, income testing, assets testing and the treatment of compensation income. It is important that we clarify the relationship between the two systems to ensure consistency and equity for the recipients.

I will briefly touch on some of the technical aspects of these amendments which deal with tax treatment of veterans, pensions and assets, bereavement payments and the eligibility criteria for assistance and compensation. The bill will ensure that one-off payments of family assistance under the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (More Help for Families—One-off Payments) Act 2004 do not count as income under the act, bringing the VEA into line with the Social Security Act. It also makes some technical changes to the way the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act operate.

The definition of ‘compensation affected pension’ will be changed so that the telephone allowance, the advanced pharmaceutical allowance and the education entry payment, which are paid to certain recipients of service pensions and income support pensions, are included in the compensation recovery provisions within the act. That means that any payments that have been made during a compensation preclusion period are recoverable under the compensation recovery provisions rather than directly recoverable from a pensioner, separate from any overpayment. Even though this is only a minor operational change, I believe it will deliver a far better service to veterans whilst removing any indignity associated with the recovery process.

This bill will also require the Repatriation Commission to provide written notification of income support pension decisions and to make a written record of those determinations. The commission will have to present its findings in writing based on the facts and evidence and give clear reasons for its determination. The commission will also have to provide a copy of its decision, findings and rights of appeal to the claimant, except in cases where information is of a confidential nature.

It is particularly important for people going through the often emotional process of having their claims for war widows pension or disability pensions assessed by strangers. Not only do they experience the stress of waiting to find out their future financial situation but they often feel exposed by having the veracity of their claims questioned. Providing a written explanation of the commission’s decision on claims and outlining the appeal process for the claimant gives them some measure of surety and comfort at what is often a very tense and emotional time. I can tell you this, Mr Deputy Speaker: when people come into my office they are certainly stressed out when these things are under way.

I particularly applaud the government’s decision to extend the eligibility for rent assistance to recipients of the special rate disability pension, otherwise known as the TPI pension. I have met with many veterans groups throughout my electorate, including members of the Extremely Disabled War Veterans Association at Hervey Bay, who have raised the rent assistance issue. I encourage the minister to further consider extending the eligibility for rent assistance to other groups of incapacitated veterans, in particular the Extremely Disabled War Veterans Association members.

I also applaud the bill’s amendment to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 with regard to injuries and disease that emanate from treatment for service related injury or disease, as well as its clarification that there is no burden of proof for the acceptance of liability of claims.

I am a great believer in the government giving proper recognition to people for their war service. I found my meeting with these veterans at Hervey Bay a very great learning experience. These people of course have suffered some of the worst disabilities, and they have written to me. In addition to the matter I just raised about extending rent assistance, they have raised the matter of half-price taxi vouchers for carers of EDA veterans. Quite often the carers of these veterans are themselves getting old. It is often difficult for them to get around. I will read a paragraph from a letter from June Harper, the secretary of the Extremely Disabled War Veterans of Australia Central and North Queensland Association. As I said, I met them at Hervey Bay. It states:

The main points were Half Price Taxi Vouchers for Carers of EDA Veterans, many are too old to drive or have never done so, and the cost to them of getting to Doctors or visiting their Veteran in hospitals quite large, in many places there is no suitable public transport, even if they could use it, which many can’t.

She then asks: is this state?—meaning is this a state matter.

That invites me to say how we could address this matter. I was talking to the minister’s advisers just before I got on my feet. Apparently there is not a ministerial council between the Commonwealth and the states on veterans matters. I suppose veterans matters have always been almost totally the exclusive province of the Commonwealth. However, there is a half-price voucher system operating in some states. I wonder, if it cannot be done through the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. He could call on his colleague the transport minister to see at the next ministerial council meeting of that particular group—and I encourage the minister to do this—whether we can get some arrangement of extending the pensioner entitlement, in those states which have an agreement with their taxi companies, to the carers of veterans.

The other method, I suppose, would be if the Commonwealth itself extended a voucher system to carers—and I do not underestimate the amount of work there would be to set it up. However, the whole idea of this carers system is, firstly, to give dignity to the veterans; secondly, to facilitate their health and general welfare; and, thirdly, to keep them from being institutionalised. So if we do not support the carers it is somewhat self-defeating. The longer the carers can look after these people, the greater the saving to the Commonwealth. In an overall cost analysis, the cost of a handful of taxi vouchers is probably not that great compared with, for example, the cost if a carer can no longer afford or is no longer capable of doing some of the things the veteran needs and has to drop out or the veteran has to go into institutionalised care. I think the cost difference for extending the voucher system would be absolutely minimal compared with the cost if the veteran has to be taken into some institution.

They also make the point that, despite the government’s private health insurance rebate, it is still pretty hard for the carers of veterans—not just veterans; the whole community, for that matter—to maintain their own private health insurance. Although we have extended the veterans entitlement to a 35 per cent rebate at 65 and 40 per cent at 70, might there not be a case for those carers of veterans to get perhaps a 45 per cent rebate? I might add that that was my original proposition to the Prime Minister when we raised this matter the first time. So those are matters that I would like to see transacted in the future.

In my last few minutes in this debate I would like to thank the minister for the $17,400 for a bronze statue which is now on the Cenotaph in Anzac Park in Gladstone. I might add that the state government matched that $17,400. I went to the unveiling of the statue two days before Anzac Day; it was a marvellous ceremony. It is an outstanding work by a young sculptor, Jerko Starcevic, and it will be a long-lasting tribute to servicemen. We did something different with that sculpture. Instead of the traditional digger on the .303, we used a post World War II digger—someone who would have served in the jungles of Malaya or in Vietnam. It is quite clear from the uniform that the statue is of a veteran of that era; and the rifle is an SLR, which to Vietnam veterans would be very evocative, I imagine, of their service. That was a great day and I congratulate the minister, the Queensland government and, in particular, Mayor Corones of Gladstone on showing that bit of extra concern for the post World War II digger.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to speak on veterans affairs issues and bills, and I am particularly pleased to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. It is a pleasure because I have a lot of interest and concern in the affairs of veterans not only in my community but right across Australia, as I know many other members and senators do, and for good reason. I have a lot of veterans in my electorate, perhaps one of the larger veteran communities in all of Australia. Over the years that I have been the member for Oxley, I have grown not only to know their community better but also to understand their community much better. I believe I have developed a very strong, good working relationship with the veteran community, as I think all members of parliament and senators should do. In doing that I have managed to better understand and better inform myself of what it really means for them to be veterans—not just for the veteran personally but for their families, for their children and for their friends as well.

There are many issues that revolve around being a veteran today, and some are highly complex issues—compensation, welfare, wellbeing, mental health and physical health. Again, as I just said, these are issues not just for the veterans themselves; they impact on their families and friends and their children. So it is significant today that this chamber debate this bill and make some very necessary changes, some long overdue changes, to the veterans affairs legislation, which needs to be improved.

It is also significant because it is the first opportunity I have had since Anzac Day to speak in this chamber on veterans affairs issues, so I will put on record that Anzac Day this year was a great event, as it always is. It is a commemoration, it is a special celebration in remembering those who have gone before us and fallen, and it signifies all those veterans who have served our country. It was with great pride that I attended a number of Anzac Day events in my electorate and was represented at many others. It is with great pride that I note in my electorate, and in other electorates—in Ipswich as well as in Brisbane—that Anzac Day is becoming more and more significant, more and more important, that more schools are being involved, that young people are being involved and taking the time out. They are coming out earlier. They are going to the dawn services. We are seeing some of the largest crowds we have ever seen.

People might have different views as to why that is the case, but it does not really matter why that is the case. I think it shows and demonstrates an interest of the community, an interest of young people, that our history is important, that our veterans are important, that the things that they did for us are important and that we should never forget that—that the mottos of Anzac Day and the words that we speak on those days, ‘Lest we forget’, are serious, solemn words. They are there to ensure that we do not forget and that we recall the deeds of the past. We know that Anzac Day is not a celebration of war or even of victories, for that matter; it is a commemoration, a remembrance day, and a very important one. I thought I would take the opportunity while speaking on this veterans affairs bill to note that.

Not only should we be looking after veterans for the things that they have done for us but veterans themselves take great pride in looking after others. They do it for themselves when it comes to looking after their own. They set up their own advocacy groups and help groups. They make sure that one mate looks after another mate, and I think that is the most important step, the very first step. They cannot do it on their own, and that is something that government needs to understand. While they are prepared to put in the time to volunteer and do the things they have to do, they cannot do it on their own. They need assistance. They need professional services, professional officers, counsellors and also money. They need funding, because these things do not just happen as a matter of course. They need the support of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs also. They also need understanding from the department, which I know they do have—maybe not always as best as it could be, but it is certainly very good—and they need the understanding of the government and of the minister.

That support is important for the work they have done for us in the past, for the things they have done for us, and for the work they continue to do in the community—within their own community and in the broader community as well. There is a great spirit of volunteerism within the veteran community. I do not know what it is about them, but I know that in my community—and it is always a great source of pride for me—whenever there is a volunteers awards day, whenever you need volunteers, whenever something is happening in the community, they are the first to stick their hands in the air. They are the first to give freely of their time. They are the first to want to contribute to their community. Perhaps it is because they have served, perhaps it is because of their military background and training, or perhaps it is just because they really are decent people.

I want to also mention that this legislation affects a whole range of people: those who would have served in World War II, through to Vietnam, to more recent conflicts—Iraq, Afghanistan—and to peacekeeping. Certainly in my community, veterans are well represented in all those fields and many others as well. This bill will certainly deal with a whole range of people in the veteran community.

It is just a housekeeping bill, though. It raises a number of issues and tries to provide better service for current arrangements within the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. It tidies up a number of things that are out of date and do not work any longer. It is no surprise that federal Labor support this bill, because ultimately it corrects unintended consequences of the current drafting and improves the arrangement of income support and pensions for our Australian veterans. While I say that we support it, I also add that there are some parts of the bill which I personally have issues with, that concern me and that I do not think are completely appropriate. Nevertheless, the bill in its entire form is worthy of support because it does help veterans.

The other issues we can continue to debate in this parliament. I think if there is anything we can say about debates in terms of veterans affairs issues it is that there is great bipartisanship from both sides of the Australian parliament. While we might disagree on some of the timing issues, some of the minor detail and other improvements that could assist veterans, at least we all agree on those things that will help veterans and are for the betterment of veterans’ lives.

What is disappointing, though, is that the Howard government continues to deprioritise a range of very important issues currently associated with our veterans. This I find more than disappointing. In fact, I find it surprising that after 11 years in government it has not found the time, the will or the tenacity to listen enough to veterans to understand some of their issues. In relation to this bill I speak in particular of issues of indexation, which have an impact on all veterans who receive some type of assistance from the government. This is important because of the mental health issues that I raised before and a range of other problems that are encountered by our veterans that need to be promptly addressed.

It is not limited just to those types of issues. Veterans, like other ordinary people in the community, face a range of day-to-day problems associated with just getting by, just with surviving, existing. While it is true to say that we have got a strong economy—we hear it every day and we are not shy to talk about it; nor is the government, I suppose—it is not evenly distributed. Some people are doing exceptionally well, and that is the reality, but many others in the community are actually doing it tougher than they have ever done it. I think one of those groups in the community that are doing it particularly tough today, right now, is veterans. Veterans are doing it tough. Their pensions do not quite cover this new, great economy that we have. It is a good economy, but it costs a lot to be part of this new economy and not all veterans can afford to be part of this new economy. This is not something that I have come to a conclusion on by myself; this is something the veterans are telling me. They are saying: ‘Our pension and some of the allowances we get just do not match the extra costs of living today. They just aren’t matched by what we receive.’

That is why I said earlier that I am disappointed that, after 11 years and a lot of crowing about how great the economy is, the government have not taken the time and have not felt it was important enough to go to the core parts of indexation, pensions and compensation for veterans in our community to try to balance that up and make things a bit better for them. I like to think I can apply some pressure to government from time to time, particularly on these issues. What I hope does not come out of this is another advertising campaign. I think we have all seen plenty of advertising campaigns. What I would like to see is some money spent on veterans directly. I do not think you would have to tell the whole community. I think that, maybe by doing it, veterans would know. They would know it in their hip pocket. They would know instantly. They would know it through their newsletters, at minimal to nil cost to government. I hope that out of this we do not get some flash advertising campaign which actually costs more than any of the changes that the government might put forward.

Fixing this ongoing indexation problem for our veterans would restore value to their payments. I do not think I would get any argument on that. I am hearing some murmurs across the chamber from the Liberal Party. I wonder whether they are arguing that veterans do not deserve proper indexation. I am not sure, but I hope that is not what they are saying.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course not.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good. I just was not sure. I hope they are not here arguing against indexation, because that would be very disappointing. I hope the government after 11 years is not making light of these issues and is taking these issues very seriously, as I am today.

I reaffirm my commitment to our veterans. I remind the people who are listening or reading this speech that to date Labor under Kevin Rudd is the only party that has made the commitment to our most severely disabled war veterans that they will have their pensions adjusted to take account of not just the cost of living but also the standard of living. That is an important point that should be understood by government—it is not just the cost of living but the standard of living. Veterans today are probably doing it tougher than they have ever done in the past, and that is very disappointing. We are living in good times but they are not good times for everyone.

Under a Rudd Labor government, these veterans will no longer have to depend on the government to deliver these one-off catch-up payments. Catch-up payments are always generous and are always a good thing, but I would like to see catch-up payments more than just once per election cycle. This is more important than that. This is more important than just once in a while in a budget. A real commitment from government would be to say: ‘Let’s fix the endemic problem. Let’s go to the core of the problem. Let’s fix that. Let’s not have veterans worrying about this issue continually. Let’s not have the debates, the backwards and forwards, over how much a catch-up payment should be, about whether they deserve it and about whether they should get it.’ Of course they should get it and of course they deserve it.

This should not be a political tool; this should not be used as propaganda in election campaigns. This should be done automatically. This should be done as a matter of course. This should be done for the benefit of veterans, not for the benefit of government. Catch-up payments, handing out money—their money, taxpayers’ money—are not about self-promotion; they are about doing the right thing by veterans in the first place. This is about making sure you do not ever need catch-up payments. In the end catch-up payments are an admission of failure. They are an admission that you have done the wrong thing. They are an admission by the government that after 11 years they did not get it right and still have not got it right. That is what catch-up payments are—an admission of fault.

Indexation is the core problem. By fixing that problem you will make it better for veterans. At the end of the day they are the people we are trying to help and serve. They have served us; it is now time for us to serve them. Labor has promised that over the first four years pension recipients would be $1,700 better off, with their pensions building to be $30 a fortnight more than they otherwise would have been. This is the proper way to go. While it is a lot of money, in the end it is not a lot of money. It is a bit like the tax cuts. They are certainly welcome. It is a little bit of money. It is always good to get some of your money back. Of course, you are not going to get all of your money back—and I think veterans will understand that too. They are not asking for a whole heap. They are not asking for huge handouts. What they are asking for is a fair go. They do not want the one-off catch-ups. They actually want proper indexation. They want to have these matched properly.

This bill has a number of key provisions relating to income support and assets. It is split into five distinct schedules. It is important when we mention these that we outlay our concerns as well for the veteran community as a whole. I have talked extensively on indexation and the potential if we do not do this to compromise veterans’ standards and wellbeing. The second schedule looks at rehabilitation and compensation. Again I shake my head because I cannot understand or believe that in 11 very long years there has not been a time when the government thought it was important enough to look more closely at veterans and the issues very close to them.

As we saw, there was some aid in the budget, but the government did not take the time to specifically address veterans’ issues. I hate to sound like a broken record on this matter, but the government are out of touch. They are out of touch with the community and they are certainly out of touch with the veteran community.

The budget made no specific reference to mental health issues or the suicide rate or any other serious issue within our veteran community. These issues need to be seriously and adequately addressed by government. The RSL in fact has called for priority assistance on these matters for some time, particularly within their recent budget proposal, and Labor has long been calling for these issues to be addressed. But, as I said, unfortunately, it has not occurred to date. It has fallen on deaf ears. I am hoping that the government do not get scared off by this. It may be a slightly controversial topic for government; otherwise, you could not find any other reason why they have not dealt with it as yet. I see that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is here. I welcome him. I know he is a good supporter of veterans. I have welcomed him to my electorate and he did a good job, so I will acknowledge that. While he is here, I ask him to take note and to properly look after veterans.

In conclusion, I raise a couple of things specifically in the bill, as well as other matters. Claims processing times are an issue, and I think the minister needs to look at that very carefully. There has been a blow-out in the time it takes for veterans to get their claims processed. That concerns me. In fact, there has been a 400 per cent blow-out in claims processing times. I do not think it is good enough, and I am sure the minister does not think it is good enough, either. Maybe he should look at that. It would be no surprise to find that perhaps staffing is at the core of the problem. Over the last two financial years, staffing levels of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs have notionally been down by 12.5 per cent. I understand from this budget they will be down again. Fewer staff obviously means more work, more pressure and slower processing times. Again, that is simply not good enough.

In the time available to me, I conclude with a commitment from Labor, from Kevin Rudd and from me. A Labor government will increase benefits for our nation’s most severely disabled war veterans. A Rudd Labor government will restore the value of the special rate disability pension—TPI and TTI intermediate rate—and the extreme disablement adjustment pensions by indexing the whole of those pensions to movements in male total average weekly earnings or to the consumer price index, whichever is greater. And, for the first time, Labor will take up the catch-up payment problem, and the admission of failure by government through a catch-up payment that they have not done the right thing.

Labor need to make the acknowledgement. I always hear platitudes to veterans and they are wonderful to hear. We attend Anzac Day ceremonies and other ceremonies that remember the fallen. We have to remember not just the fallen but those who come back with mental health and physical disability issues. We have to understand their particular issues, their needs and their situations in the community, their families and their children’s health and we need to make that special effort. I do not think it is a lot to ask government. I have had a look at the budget, and so has everybody else in the community. And there is plenty of money and more where that came from—I am sure the government are happy to tell us—because they are certainly ripping it out of people’s pockets. While you are ripping it out of people’s pockets, do not forget to put some of it back into veterans’ pockets because they deserve it for the things they have done for this country. They never asked to go and defend us. We asked them to do so on our behalf as a whole community and I think it is only right that, while they do their duties, we should carry out our responsibilities.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—The Howard government has further enhanced our world-class repatriation system. It recognises the nation’s special and sincere duty to those who have served and the special standing and needs of our veterans community. The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 is further evidence of the Howard government’s recognition of the need to continually evolve and enhance our world-class veterans affairs system and to tirelessly and continuously pursue improvements in the delivery of repatriation services and support to Australia’s veterans and their dependants.

This world-class repatriation system provides a comprehensive range of benefits to compensate veterans, serving members and their dependants for injury, disability and death resulting from their service. It has been built over many decades. It has been built on the foundations of solid principles, sound rationale and a clear understanding of the specific demands, potential consequences and unique implications of military service. To breach these fundamental repatriation principles means risking these time-honoured and respected foundations and the community’s support for our beneficial veterans affairs system and the exclusivity now accorded to our ex-service community.

The changes made by this bill will improve the efficiency of the delivery of those benefits and other services that are provided to veterans, serving members and their dependants under both the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill also makes amendments that will further align certain provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act with the social security law. The bill includes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act that will clarify the status of Defence Force income support allowance payments and provide for the inclusion of income support supplement recipients in the group of persons not required to provide a tax file number.

The amendments made by the bill to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are technical amendments to correct some of the anomalies in that act. These amendments will extend the circumstances in which liability can be accepted for injuries or diseases caused or aggravated by the consequences of medical treatment provided in relation to a service injury or disease. The bill also amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to clarify issues concerning the onus of proof for liability claims. These amendments recognise that within the service environment, where documentation and evidentiary material may be lost or unavailable, it may be difficult to prove a connection between that service and the injury, disease or death. The amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act include amendments to the compensation recovery provisions that will be applicable to supplementary payments, such as telephone allowance, advanced pharmaceutical allowance and education entry payment, that are payable to certain service pensioners and income support supplement recipients.

The Defence Force income support allowance provisions are amended by the bill to include changes applicable to the recovery of overpayments and to provide for an increase under the bereavement payment provisions of the Social Security Act to carer payment recipients in certain circumstances. Other amendments rectify an oversight which has meant that the Defence Force income support allowance pension bonus could not be paid after the eligible person died or if their claim had not been determined at the time of death. The bill also inserts additional provisions to ensure that written notification of determinations is provided to claimants of service pension income support supplement, Commonwealth senior health cards and lump sum advances. The bill makes enhancements to the means test provisions to allow the disposal of assets provisions to be disregarded in circumstances where an asset is subsequently returned or adequate consideration is subsequently received. The amendments will address some potentially unfair outcomes, including the possibility of double counting of assets in some situations.

The bill also clarifies the arrangements relating to the payment of pensions and the provision of treatment for a person who is in jail. The amendments made by the bill will align the Veterans’ Entitlements Act with the Social Security Act so that the pension will not be payable only with respect to the days the person is in jail. Other amendments will make it clear that the treatment under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act is not provided to persons in prison, as this is the responsibility of the relevant state or territory.

The bill also expands the definition of ‘jail’ to include persons being lawfully detained in a prison or elsewhere pending trial or sentencing, and we will also include those persons who are in a psychiatric confinement environment after being charged with an offence. The bill includes a number of other minor and technical amendments to repeal redundant references and provisions and to correct minor errors in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The proposed changes contained in the bill will enhance my department’s capacity to deliver benefits and entitlements for our veterans and Defence Force communities.

This bill is further demonstration of the Howard government’s ongoing commitment to this deserving group of Australians. The merit of this, yet another package of Howard government initiated enhancements and improvement to our veterans affairs system, seems uncontested, with Labor once again simply falling in line behind the Howard government’s work. I welcome their support for these measures. It is interesting that Labor seeks to associate itself with the hard work and the sustained efforts of the Howard government to support our veterans and Defence Force communities. We saw it with the contributions to this debate, with the opposition again recognising that the Howard government was doing the right thing, and pledging its support with hollow words of bipartisan support but then switching back to type with basic politicking and grievance peddling.

With an election approaching, we can expect Labor to show a belated interest in veterans, purely in search of their hope, hoping veterans will forget the years and years of Labor disinterest and the dismal appreciation of their needs amongst the veterans community. Remember the last election policy and its paltry commitments. Labor will become more shrill, more slippery, more superficial and more sensationalist in their claims and accusations.

Let me touch on some of the themes and claims peddled by Labor during this debate. This year’s budget totals $11 billion. It has been allocated to best manage and address the challenges of a changing veterans affairs landscape, with a growing number of younger veterans and, sadly, a reducing number of older veterans, as they move to a more peaceful place.

This $11 billion veterans affairs budget is up from $6.5 billion when the Howard government was first elected. Sound economic management and the prosperity nurtured by the Howard government have made this huge funding increase achievable and sustainable. It is a further meaningful and tangible demonstration of this government’s ongoing commitment to fully discharge our nation’s special duty to those who serve and further evidence of the Howard government’s ongoing support for this very deserving group of Australians.

The recent federal budget provided some further support for veterans with service related disabilities receiving the special rate and intermediate rate pensions, with fortnightly payments boosted by $50 and $25 respectively, thanks to the $160 million budget allocation. Twenty-nine thousand veterans will see this pay rise in July. This is $160 million of new money. Why? Because these veterans have been recognised as having had their working life cut short because of illness, injury or impairments relating to their service. The economic loss to the veteran is recognised by the ‘above general rate’ component of the veterans compensation payment in addition to the compensation paid for pain and suffering associated with the service related disability. Had those injuries not occurred, those people would have the opportunity to be in the workforce. They would be able to benefit from the prosperity that our nation is basking in and that is benefiting all those who are able to be employed. That missed opportunity is why above general rate payments are indexed to movements in CPI or with reference to movements in male average total weekly earnings in a manner consistent with the service pension indexation. The Howard government’s boost to special rate and intermediate rate pensions is principled, sound and substantial. It offers policy integrity and consistency with the fundamental repatriation system principles.

The veterans community welcomes this Howard government initiative and the beneficiaries will see tangible increases in their pensions, starting in a handful of weeks, amounting to a yearly boost of $1,300 for special rate recipients and $650 for intermediate rate recipients year on year and indexed in a manner consistent with the service pension. To manage and lead a portfolio of $11 billion requires a need to recognise and explain with clarity and with principle the policy parameters in the initiatives and to demonstrate that they have been thought through.

On the eve of the federal budget and on the back of criticisms that Labor’s national conference and election platforms are veterans affairs policy-free zones, the Labor Party blurted out a media announcement designed to chase media headlines and to distract attention from the Howard government’s positive, principled and thoughtful budget initiatives. Well, that is politics—but we do know that, when it comes to veterans affairs policy, all Labor has is politicking. You see it in the way that Labor reacts to my examination of its superficial media stunt announcement. Labor takes its lead from its leader, Kevin Rudd. Kevin is not big on detail and neither is the enormous spin doctor and PR machine that pre-choose Labor’s words for maximum media impact and minimal policy content. Labor was pleased with the headlines and the internet chat its announcement generated, some of which claimed a $30 increase in pensions for the beneficiaries.

What was not well understood was the actual announcement itself, which did not offer any immediate increase in pensions. In fact, it offered none of the remedies to the problems that Labor claimed existed. You have heard previous members in here talk about restoring value. There was absolutely nothing restorative in the Labor announcement. It said that, in its first budget after it may be elected, a changed indexation method would apply. If that indexation method produced a benefit, then it would be a benefit in the eyes of the veteran. But that would not start until 2008. In the press release, cobbled together through words designed to confuse and mislead people, the claim of a $30 increase was actually related to what might happen by 2012 if indexation projections as they claimed proved to be true. There was no restorative character whatsoever in that announcement.

Also, the claimed change to indexation reflects no method of indexation currently used anywhere in the Commonwealth. MTAWE or a percentage of it is used as a benchmark against which this government has legislated that pensions will not fall—25 per cent of MTAWE is a legislated benchmark against which aged-care pensions and other related income support payments will not fall. It is not a matter of indexation by CPI or MTAWE, whichever is greater. There is no such method of indexation currently used by the Commonwealth. So the announcement claims to be something that it is not, suggests or misleads people into believing a benefit will be delivered soon when it will not be. It is then applied to a range of payments, including those not related to economic loss, and then denies that very treatment for 100,000 other veterans who are also receiving injury, pain and suffering compensation but are excluded from the Labor announcement.

When I point out these very real, very substantial, very unprincipled characteristics of the Labor policy, I am accused of being against pension increases. What a juvenile account of my remarks by the Labor opposition spokesman. Nothing could be further from the truth. What he has been stung by and what is understood by thinking members of the broader veterans community is that the policy he is bringing forward is discriminatory, it is unprincipled and it vandalises and undermines some of the key principles and key foundations that allow governments—successive governments—to implement a pro-veteran beneficial system that is characterised as being responsive, sound and principled against the veterans’ experience. That is what this is about.

I even saw—I am not sure whether it was rhetorical or a statement of confusion—that the member for Banks posed the question: ‘What is the difference between the TPI and the old-age pension?’ Where do you want to start? There are an abundant number of differences and this seems not to be understood and appreciated by the ALP. They have a policy position that introduces a method of indexation never used before that discriminates against those who are also receiving injury payments and does not offer any meaningful benefit until 2012—the gall, then, of the Labor Party to attack the government’s direct, demonstrable, meaningful and substantial benefits in the budget. It is quite bizarre.

I think there is some recognition of this because, just moments after the budget announcement, the Labor Party were contorting themselves to try to again hitch their wagon to the initiatives and the policies of the government, saying, ‘Of course, what the government has done is right and proper,’ and somehow suggesting that, because the growth in the economy had produced an interest in MTAWE related adjustments, that was a problem that the government had created and therefore we should fix it. What a novel approach by the alternative government! Anything that ever happened in the past is not something they need to be concerned about: is that the message that the veterans community should get? Because that does reflect the articulation of their policy, which shows a very limited appreciation of what is actually happening in the veterans community.

Moreover—and it is worth emphasising—I am not the slightest bit convinced that Labor would be able to implement their policy statement because it is so fundamentally flawed and cobbled together and offends so many key aspects of the repatriation system. We know about MTAWE. I understand why the Labor Party do not. Under their 13 years in government there was a reduction in real wages. So people are looking to the CPI for salvation at a time when the economy grows and you see prosperity in the workplace—this is why MTAWE becomes important. But its application needs to be understood, and the principles based on which you seek to embrace MTAWE and reference it need to have a percentage point if you can link it to the current methods of indexation used for other pensions. Labor have failed that test, and I expect that we will see another contorted effort to try to patch over that and say, ‘Of course, this is what was meant, blah, blah, blah,’ giving more evidence that there is not the skill and the work and the insight needed to develop veterans affairs policies.

Some other issues were raised. I heard about the processing of claims—claim times and the like. That is interesting as well. But to arrive at the attack, which has been parroted by Labor members, means to ignore a great body of evidence and focus, as if looking at the issue through a straw, on a very narrow set of material.

You heard the previous member accusing the government of some 400 per cent blow-out in claims. The only case where that could be substantiated relates to the new military rehabilitation and compensation system when in the first year there were two claims processed. So their basis for that comparison is two claims. They then failed to recognise that the claims processing capability within the department scales up in response to the claims effort that is brought before it by those lodging claims. That evidence has been provided over and over again, yet the Labor Party find it convenient and politically opportunistic to ignore the facts of the matter. In fact, the concerted effort to address large numbers of claims, including the deseal-reseal claims and, more particularly, long outstanding claims, has seen outstanding claims in general made under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act actually reduced by 15 per cent since July 2006 to become the lowest number of outstanding claims in over a decade. So it is important to realise that when people are trying to present an argument, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth are actually three different things. If one wants to engage with integrity and sincerity it is best to address those three factors when making such claims.

Notwithstanding the other reforms that are being made, such as the task force we have put in place to further streamline claims processing to see what initiatives can be put in place there, and changes to the business improvement process for above general rate claims, we have also got working parties working in partnership with ex-service organisations to look at work practices that could refine the claims process and not only improve the quality of the claims but also streamline their processing. Why? Claims processing is a collaborative exercise. The department does not stop the clock while it waits for other material or input from others involved in that collaboration. That is understood by the veterans community but seems not to be understood by the Labor Party. We have also got a single access point for defence records to simplify and speed up the exchange of information. There are also other management processes being trialled to try to expedite this claims process. All of these are very significant initiatives.

What was most disturbing about some of the commentary was the further use of selective information. The member for Cowan purports to represent the veterans community by circulating and re-parroting very selective parts of information. He referred to a tragedy. I have such respect for the family concerned—and I extend my condolences to them—that I will not trawl through the detail of that tragedy. To see parts of a psychiatric report read into Hansard and to then accuse the department of not being responsive is unfortunate. Somehow the report ended up in the hands of the member for Cowan, yet those representing the individual did not see fit to actually share that information with the department. It is indeed a tragedy on a tragedy. There is also other material that points to the broader, more complex and full life that that individual lived. Again, this selective use of material overlooked some other very important factors in that case. I will not go any further, other than to say that I find it disturbing and disingenuous and that it is a great disappointment to those in the veterans community that the Labor Party continued to peddle very selective material.

We saw this in their remarks and involvement in an interview between me and Cynthia Banham. I have never before seen a condolence motion used for a cheap political attack. I was amazed, and I share with many others how appalled I was. To claim that there was some special insight and to ignore the account of that interview that even the newspaper itself has published is a new form of selectiveness and a new form of appalling political conduct that I have not seen before. I suggest to the Labor Party: if you are serious about veterans affairs—and it is a serious business—you need to approach it in a more holistic, genuine and informed manner, otherwise the veterans community will continue to be disappointed in the Labor Party.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.