Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call on the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to take appropriate measures to contact our service men and women to whom this determination applies. I also openly express my admiration for the members of the Citizen Military Forces in its various forms over the last century and a half. The younger generations of our nation today may not recognise the term CMF, as now it is known as and its role is filled by the Australian Army Reserve. Australia’s volunteer defence force has been helping to protect Australia’s sovereignty since before Federation. In fact, it was the outbreak of the Crimean War in 1854 that prompted the formation of volunteer forces in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. Since then Australia has always had a reserve force ready to commit its support to the defence of our nation.

When Australia became a federation, a part-time force of citizens known as the Commonwealth Military Forces, or CMF, was formed to protect Australian territory. The Australian Regular Army was established after World War II, in 1947, and to support it the Citizen Military Forces was reformed. The CMF, which was renamed the Australian Army Reserve in 1974, has been a crucial support base for the Navy, Army and Air Force and has been involved in a number of conflicts since 1947, including the Korean War, the Gulf War and the current fight against terrorism in Afghanistan.

It was during the Vietnam War, however, that members of the CMF again showed their courage and their willingness to fight for the freedoms we in Australia so often take for granted. In 1964, in the face of rumbling conflict in South-East Asia, the Australian government reintroduced national service to strengthen Australia’s military power. A year later, an infantry battalion was sent to South Vietnam at the request of the South Vietnamese government. By 1967, 8,000 personnel were deployed in South Vietnam, including a large number of CMF members. Many of these CMF soldiers saw what our full-time and conscripted troops saw—death, destruction and the other horrors of war. Yet it was not until the end of the century that their service in Vietnam provided them the same recognition as the rest of our brave war veterans.

In August 1998, just over a month after the inaugural Reserve Forces Day was held to celebrate 50 years of service by reservists, the continuous full-time service determination was signed, which enables members of the CMF who served in Vietnam to be legally considered veterans. This allows them to enjoy the same recognition as other brave veterans and to receive the same entitlements.

The members of the CMF who had served in Vietnam were notified of their tour by an instruction that said:

You have been selected to visit South Vietnam on attachment as an observer to an Australian unit for a period of approximately two weeks.

They were also told, and I quote again:

Members on short term visits to South Vietnam are not allotted for special duty. However, benefits under the Repatriation (SOS) Act are provided (even though no allotment for special duty has been made) when a member dies or suffers a disability as a result of action by hostile forces whilst outside Australia ... Any other disability is compensable under the Commonwealth Employees’ Act.

During my time as the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I had many former members of the CMF come to me to discuss eligibility for veterans entitlements and the war service pension. They believed that those CMF members who had undertaken continuous full-time duty of 14 days in Vietnam were considered worthy of veteran status. And I agree with them, as the Commonwealth government’s Veterans Entitlements Act defines a Commonwealth veteran as:

… a person who served on a continuous full time basis in the defence forces of a Commonwealth country during a period of hostilities.

According to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, ‘continuous full-time service in relation to a member of the Defence Force means that a person must have served on a continuous full-time basis, as opposed to a part-time basis. A period of continuous full-time service is required by a member of the Defence Force if they are to be considered as having eligible war service, operational service or defence service and access to the benefits associated with those forms of service’.

The former Liberal-National government’s decision to deem CMF officers as Vietnam veterans led to me, six months later, calling for a review of possible anomalies in service entitlements affecting those members of the Australian Defence Force who served in South-East Asia during the period from 1955 to 1975. This independent review was conducted by Major General Mohr, with the assistance of Rear Admiral Kennedy, and it supported our decision to deem CMF officers eligible for veteran entitlements. Major General Mohr reviewed the particular service entitlement anomaly in which CMF officers sought full repatriation benefits, and expressed his opinion that officers are ‘entitled to claim the full range of repatriation benefits’. He then went on to comment in the report:

Apparently this was not known to the CMF officers concerned.

Major General Mohr also noted that the officers concerned have had full cover under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act since 1986. This determination not only signified a change for our selfless CMF members and officers but also signified that the former Liberal-National government—and indeed all Australian governments in the past—has long valued the work that is done by all involved in Australia’s war effort, not just those on the front line. Australia’s ability to defend our sovereignty has been possible because of both those overseas and those behind the scenes at home.

Our reservists are a crucial part of our defence and many, just like the CMF officers in Vietnam, would be more than willing to head overseas, away from their family and friends, and straight into the firing line if it meant defending the values and freedoms that we so often take for granted in Australia. So it was with a sense of frustration and sadness that I learned that some members of the CMF who did serve in Vietnam were unaware they were eligible for Commonwealth support. Indeed, some may still be very much oblivious. I understand the Department of Veterans’ Affairs claim that they had no obligation to establish who may or may not have been affected by the determination. Yet the service charter of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs states that the department is committed to providing ‘accurate, clear and consistent information’ and committed to keeping veterans and returned service men and women ‘fully informed of their rights and entitlements’.

Surely, then, it is the role of the department to make the effort to notify those to whom this determination—or indeed any change to legislation or process—applies? Surely letters, emails or even an advertising campaign in newspapers would allow those concerned to learn of their eligibility? RSL sub-branches and other returned service support organisations are more than willing to help out their fellow service men and women, and I am sure they would be very enthusiastic about supporting the department in passing on very important information.

I would like to temper this criticism to ensure I am not mistaken for being disrespectful to the department—far from it. As a former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I have worked closely with department heads and officials and I applaud them for their tireless efforts to ensure that Australians never forget what our service men and women have done for our nation. The employees of the department show the respect deserved by our veterans, war widows and widowers and deal with their issues and concerns with sensitivity, empathy and regard to privacy, and I admire their work. I also understand that the department works within its ability and legal limitations as set out by the minister and government of the day. That is why I call on the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, for whom I have great respect, to take measures to contact those to whom this determination applies and compensate them accordingly. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Maranoa for bringing to the chamber issues related to veterans. My electorate of Blair in Queensland has many veterans. We have the largest military base in the country, at Amberley. It interesting to note we have a net total of 3,574 beneficiaries—people on DVA pensions and treatment card holders in my electorate—as of 28 June 2008, and that includes 873 veterans, 704 service pensioners and their partners, 1,045 gold card holder veterans and 706 independents. So my electorate is very much affected by motions like this. I think it had its genesis, as the member for Maranoa said, in his time as the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, when I am sure he came across many people in terrible circumstances who did not know they were entitled to assistance for their service on behalf of all of us in Australia. Whether or not one agreed with the Vietnam War, their service on behalf of the people of Australia and the government of Australia at the time should be honoured. As I have said on numerous occasions in my electorate, their service was of invaluable assistance to this country. We cannot enjoy the freedoms, the liberty and the lifestyle that we have in this country without honouring them.

I had a look at the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, and it is section 5I(1)(b) which is the actual provision. I am happy to mention that to the member for Maranoa because that is the section that he is talking about. He made a determination back then that the act applies to, or in relation to, any member of the Australian Defence Force who, while not rendering continuous full-time service, was rendering service as a member who was, or as a member of a unit of the Defence Force that was, allotted for duty or taken to have been allotted for duty in an operational area—described in schedule 2 of the act as being any time during the period from and including 31 July 1962 to and including 11 January 1973—or was a member of a unit of the Defence Force attached to the Far East Strategic Reserve between 2 July 1955 and 27 May 1963. That is what the provision is about. The member for Maranoa had the foresight to do that, and I thank him for it because it was good work on behalf of the veterans.

I looked into the history of the Citizen Military Forces, and it is really quite strange that we do not teach enough about this matter in our schools. We should. Our young people should know about this. Prior to World War I, the defence forces consisted of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth—of course, there were not many planes in those days, so we did not have an air force—and the military forces were divided into the permanent forces and the citizen forces. On 18 February 1943 the Defence (Citizens Military Forces) Act 1943 was passed, which provided for the first time that members of the CMF might be required to be sent outside Australia or its territories. So they were sent overseas to defend our shores and to defend us. The areas were limited to the south-west Pacific zone. You can imagine that would have been the case, because we were fighting the war in the Pacific at the time. The act was to continue in force until six months after the cessation of hostilities.

Since 1949, compensation in respect of death or incapacity of servicemen in times of peace has been covered by successive Commonwealth employees compensation acts. The new phase was entered in 1973, when the Repatriation Act applied to peacetime services of members of the permanent military forces where qualified. The provisions of that act had not been applied to members of the CMF. By decisions of various war cabinets, some repatriation-style cover was applied to the part-time members. There are only two provisions in the actual legislation that deal with members of the CMF.

Service by members of the CMF, whether during the Second World War or any other conflict, is considered under the VEA based on their individual circumstances and whether they meet the relevant criteria for whatever benefit they are seeking. For service in Vietnam, CMF members can be determined, under the ministerial instrument that the member for Maranoa was talking about, to be covered by the VEA as if they had rendered continuous full-time service.

I had a look at the motion, and I spoke to the minister’s office. We do not have any plans to change the definition of ‘veterans’ or to stop applying ‘continuous military service’. There is no suggestion that we will not continue the policy of the previous government with respect to the definition. It is a bit hard to actually find the definition of what a veteran is. It can be applied to a Commonwealth or an Allied veteran, a mariner or a member of a peacekeeping force. But members of the CMF can be excluded. I commend the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the member for Maranoa, for what his work did in 1998. I just want to assure him that the minister has assured me that there is no plan to change the definition in that regard.

The second part of the member for Maranoa’s motion is:

That the House endorses … the ‘Continuous full-time service determination’ …

I am assured also that we do not have any plans to change that provision. I hope we never do, because I think that is a very innovative way to look at it and is the right thing to do by the veterans. As I said, there are 3,574 DVA pensioners and treatment card holders in my electorate. Many of them are veterans, and I think that they would agree with the member for Maranoa in that regard. I think the member for Maranoa has a point in respect of the need to encourage the department to publicise this to the veterans community.

I am concerned about the idea of the retrospective payments. I am always concerned about that aspect. I think that the veterans affairs legislation—I have had a bit of a look at it—does not provide for the idea of a grant of pension retrospectively. If a veteran thinks their case has been incorrectly determined, there are avenues for redress that they can undertake. The department determines all claims based on information provided.

The member for Maranoa has a point insofar as the department needs to make sure that all forms of publicity should be undertaken, whether it is through Veterans’ Affairs newsletters, publicity or correspondence that needs to be sent out. We need to make sure that anyone who might be a CMF member who might come within the determination knows about that so that they are in a position where they can come forward if they qualify in terms of their service, if they have served in Vietnam, and get that application into the department. I think the department ought to take appropriate steps. I have contacted the minister’s office in relation to that. They assure me that they do send out information and they do publicise this matter to veterans, but I am sure that the members who are veterans in my community would want me to say that we need to do everything we possibly can to ensure that they know about their eligibility.

In the final minute I have, I want to pay tribute to the veterans in my community who may be affected by this motion and by the veterans entitlements legislation. I have met many veterans, and all of us who are members of the House would take part in activities on Anzac Day and the 11th of the 11th. We meet fine men and women who have given their service and who have been affected by that service. I have met plenty of people who are just a little bit older than me and who served in places like Vietnam. I freely say that when I was a kid my folks were very much against the Vietnam War. I grew up in that sort of household. But those men could not determine where they went. They signed up to serve the country and they did that to the best of their ability. They did it honourably and with valour, and we recognise that. You can see the valour of the VC members who fought in South Vietnam. You can see that in, say, the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney. You can see the people who have served their country with distinction. Keith Pennell is a veteran in my community. He was Citizen of the Year in Ipswich. He has spent the rest of his life serving my local community. It is people like him we should commend. I thank the member for Maranoa for bringing this motion before the House.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion of the member for Maranoa. The motion before the House will encourage the government to do the right thing by those people who served and did the right thing by Australia. Back in August 1998 a continuous full-time service determination was signed, which rightly entitled those members of the CMF, now called the reserves, who served in Vietnam to the same benefits as permanent service men and women who gave active service. The motion before the House will ensure that those entitled to these benefits will be made aware of these changes and be enabled to access the benefits if applicable in their case. I do not seek to widen the entitlement net. This motion just seeks to right a wrong. The previous government ensured that the men and women who served in Vietnam as members of the CMF were included in the honours system. Servicemen were awarded the active service badge and their Vietnam clasp. Some of our CMF ex-servicemen were unaware of the 1998 ministerial determination, and I want this motion to correct that anomaly.

This is why this motion is before the House. I encouraged the member for Maranoa to move this motion, because he was the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs when the determination was signed. One of my constituents came to me after he had been advised following a claim to the Department of Finance and Administration that ‘there is no duty on DVA staff to provide unsolicited advice to any client in relation to benefits’. I seek leave to table that letter.

Leave granted.

I thank the House. I am outraged that this serviceman was advised that there was no duty on the DVA staff. Indeed, I contend the opposite. DVA staff do have a duty of care. My experience over many years has been that they do exercise that duty of care. The department’s service charter clearly states:

Our commitment is to …

• provide accurate, clear and consistent information …
• keep you fully informed of your rights and entitlements …

My constituent served with the CMF as a volunteer. He was attached to a Regular Army unit and served in South Vietnam. In August 1998, just six days prior to the ministerial determination, he again contacted the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and was advised that members of the CMF who served in South Vietnam were not regarded as veterans and therefore were not entitled to a DVA pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.

Six days later, unbeknown to him, the minister signed that determination, ensuring that those who served would be treated the same way under the act as permanent soldiers. No-one bothered to tell him. The determination received no publicity in the local media. There was no follow-up for those who had made applications and were rejected. It was not until 2006, after advice from the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service informed my constituent that he was indeed a veteran under the terms of the act, that he again made contact with the department. A service pension was subsequently granted on 9 November 2006. My constituent had retired in 1994. Following his 65th birthday in 2002 he was in receipt of an age pension, not a service pension. However, attempts to have the provisional commencement date changed to that of his original inquiry, back in 1998, were rejected.

I do not have time to elaborate any further. I believe that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs treats veterans in a very compassionate and caring way, and it has for many, many years. We have the most comprehensive and generous repatriation system in the world. I ask the government to look at this very carefully and use its discretion to back-pay retrospectively these people by means of an ex gratia payment. I thank the House.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like all members of this parliament, I am a great supporter of our military personnel. In fact, in my electorate there is an Army Reserve unit parading. I share that unit with Yandina, which is still in the electorate of the member who spoke before me but has already left the chamber for other duties elsewhere, the member for Fairfax. My father, his two brothers and my mother’s two brothers all served in World War II. It would be unkind for anybody to suggest that any sensible member of our community did not support their efforts.

I am interested in the resolution that has come before the House because we finally, through the member for Fairfax’s contribution, worked out what it is about. I must admit to having had some consternation when we saw the motion in print, because it calls on this government not to do something that it was not going to do anyway. There is no suggestion that we were ever going to change the material that was produced by Mr Scott back in 1998 on a day other than the one that his motion says he did it. However, we now understand, through the contribution of the member for Fairfax, that a person in the department of finance actually wrote a pretty crook letter. I have not seen the letter and I doubt that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has seen the letter because I have discussed this motion with him and he too is at a loss as to why this motion is before the House.

It must have taken some courage for the member for Maranoa to do the 10 minutes on this motion, because he was the minister who brought the determination into being. Some four years and three months after he brought the determination into being he ceased to be the minister, and in all that time he apparently failed to advise the people who are entitled to this of their entitlement. Not only did he fail until November 2001 but subsequent coalition veterans affairs ministers failed from 2001 to November 2007, another six years. So, in a sense, it is a decade of failure by the coalition government to properly address an issue relating to CMF members who had done their 14-day tour in Vietnam.

There is also a failure in the fact that this motion has come to this parliament before either of the people who spoke from the other side raised the matter with the minister. Common courtesy would have provided that, if the member for Fairfax has a genuine constituent issue in relation to matters with Department of Veterans’ Affairs, that needs to be addressed with the minister before a motion is brought to the chamber. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs said to me that if there is a problem he will fix it. This should not have been here at this point in time. Having said that, as my colleague the member for Blair has said, this motion creates a view that there is something that needs to be done and we will be taking that to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to see that it is done.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.