Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Forty-two Australian service members have died in Australia's modern military conflicts, which is 42 too many. But, as of 2017, some 419 current and former ADF members have died by suicide. This does not count the lives unnecessarily lost since 2017. Since I've been in parliament, I've seen a flurry of reports and reviews, from the Senate to the Productivity Commission, each looking at the experiences of veterans. Their findings have been damning and distressing. There can be no dispute as to the persuasive nature of suicide or mental health more broadly across the veteran community. What currently eludes us is a clearer understanding of the underlying causes of suicide amongst the defence community and, importantly, a solution.

Many in my community and across Australia believe that a royal commission is the most appropriate path forward, and I share that view. I support the intention behind this bill, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020, and I also recognise that the establishment of a national veterans suicide prevention commissioner has the support of ex-service organisations such as the Defence Force Welfare Association and the members they represent, but not all veterans and their families or the families of those who have lost their lives would agree and many are forceful in their opposition, and we must listen to them.

Opponents of the bill have raised concerns with respect to the perceived independence of the commissioner and the need to ensure appropriate resourcing of the office. The financial impact statement for the bill indicates a total of $42 million has been allocated for the first five years. In contrast, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse received $330 million, while the disability royal commission has been promised over $500 million. If a thorough investigation is to occur, the commissioner must not be hamstrung by meagre resourcing.

Others are concerned that there will be a lack of accountability and transparency. The commissioner will release an annual report encompassing findings and any recommendations for reform. I accept the report will be a detailed analysis of the work carried out by the commissioner and that it will, given the qualifications of the interim commissioner, be a document of great value. But I have less faith, however, in the government's ability to respond to the report and implement recommendations in a timely manner. Twice a year, the President in the other place provides a report to the Senate on the status of government responses to Senate and joint committee reports. That report was released on 30 June 2020. The list of unanswered reports runs to 19 pages. And we are still waiting for the government to release the Productivity Commission's June 2020 final report from the inquiry into mental health, let alone any response to it. So what confidence can we or, indeed, veterans have in the government considering and implementing recommendations by the commissioner? While I understand that this bill will have bipartisan passage through the House today, Centre Alliance will await the findings of the Senate committee inquiry and continue to stand with Senator Jacqui Lambie on her call for a royal commission.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mayo for her words. There have been many very fine contributions and some fine words here today. I think what I can add to the debate is some of my own personal experience. Before I get into that, I just have some clarifiers for some of the contributions I've heard today.

A royal commission will not destroy the job prospects of those who have served. One of the members opposite, the member for Fisher, said that he challenges employers to employ a veteran. I don't think it's a challenge to employ a veteran. What I say to businesses and organisations out there is: Do yourself a favour and employ a veteran. Make a smart business decision and employ a veteran. Also, I want to say that we're doing much better than we have in the past. So it's not all bad. A lot of the processes are still too complicated and disconnected. But I'll get into a bit of that later.

I don't speak for all veterans—I don't pretend to speak for all veterans; I've never claimed to—but I do talk to a lot of them, and every day I talk to a lot of those that help men and women who have served our country. Even today, I had a phone call with someone in my electorate who's working with a veteran that's on the edge. Some of those opposite said today that veterans don't want a royal commission. That's untrue. There are some that do, there are some that are not sure about a royal commission, and there are some that don't. Let's be honest about this. But no-one speaks for all veterans. That's why it's great that many members have used this opportunity to speak about their experiences and about what they think the path ahead should be. To those that say we on this side are politicising the issue, I say that that is untrue. In fact, it's offensive.

When I say I want to bring my personal experience to this debate, it's not just as a former serviceman; it's not just as a veteran. It is often multigenerational with us. Like the member for Clark said, it's in our families. Like him, I'm the brother of veterans—Army and Navy. Like the member for Newcastle and the member for Hindmarsh and others in this place, I'm sure, I'm the son of a veteran who fought in Vietnam and lost mates. Like many here, I'm the grandson of a veteran. My pop answered the call in 1939, fighting with the 7/6th Battalion. I'm the great-grandson of a veteran who had his lungs burnt out on the Western Front. He immigrated to Australia, but he had to head up to the hills of Kinglake in the mountains above Melbourne for the clean air, because he was only operating on a quarter of a lung. But he also headed up there for the solitude. So serving this country has been in my family's DNA for many generations. I know the pride and the passion and the legacy of service and the effects on individuals and families.

I also have hundreds of veteran mates, some of whom have lost their way to such an extent that they have lost the war within that the member for Herbert articulated so well and so bravely earlier today. I thank the member for Herbert for all his hard work in supporting fellow veterans. I know that he's working hard, also, to find a way through. Another mate, a local Darwin veteran, reflected to me today—as my friend and NT colleague the member for Lingiari did earlier—that there have been so many deployments over the last 30 years. There've been multiple deployments, and there are cumulative effects with those consecutive tours that our serving men and women have done. To compound the difficulty of multiple deployments, there are the cumulative effects of different compensation acts, depending on when they served: Somalia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Bougainville, Solomon Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq—the list goes on, but hopefully not too much. The member for Macquarie reflected on the current inquest into the suicide of Sergeant Ian Turner, who did multiple deployments, multiple tours, to multiple conflict zones before committing suicide.

When it comes to supporting and saving our former defence personnel, it's clear that we're losing the war. Former Special Forces Officer Major Heston Russell recently explained that he had lost more of his mates to suicide than during four deployments to Afghanistan, and he's far from alone in that experience. From my experience working in southern Afghanistan, I understand the cumulative effect of daily tension and threat. What I mean by that is that, when people are targeting you because they want to do you harm, that has a cumulative effect. It's in this environment that you obviously become tight with your mates, with those around you. You understand the reality of the risk, but you're all in it together; you're watching each other's back. You miss that closeness later. As my friend the member for Wills also explained, from his time working in Iraq, you do come back a bit changed. You jump at loud noises. You're tense. You're a bit on edge. But it's all so hard to communicate when you need help. As a result, there are generations of veterans who haven't received the care and attention that they deserved on return or in between deployments.

It's far past time for this royal commission. So many of the government speakers repeated the one point over and over: the stats are terrible; we need to find the answers. Well, let the sunlight in. A holistic and independent look from the outside in will be very helpful. The public assurance that we are listening and that we want the answers in order to fix the support systems in a holistic way will be good. A royal commission with a set start and end date and recommendations that are made public will really improve the overall system.

The national commissioner, which is the subject of this legislation, will pass this House and go to the Senate. It may be amended. Who knows. Let's see what happens. There's an inquiry on. My sense is there may well be some need in the future for a truly independent commissioner. I also want to acknowledge the member for Braddon's contribution, in particular his brave acknowledgement of the effects on him of several young men in his unit dying by suicide. With an independent commissioner, perhaps, through an investigation of the causes and harms, some of those subsequent suicides, after the first one, may have been prevented. But many veterans worry that the government's proposed National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention will not be up to the job, that this is simply a marketing exercise and won't have the resources or independence to ask the hard questions.

Hugh Poate's son, Private Robbie Poate, was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2012. Hugh and his wife, Janny, have been actively involved with helping troubled veterans ever since. They've had extensive dealings with veterans who have ideated suicide. Hugh says: 'There's a strong public perception that a defence officer is inappropriate to head such a commission. For a commissioner to be truly independent, that person should have no current or former association with the ADF.' I wanted to put that in the Hansard, as I think he deserves to be heard. I commend the Poates for the work they're doing.

The effective use of leadership would tell the PM, as it told former PM Julia Gillard in relation to institutional child abuse, that we have a problem and that what we really need is a full royal commission to fix it. That would lay out for the country the plan. It would allow us to hear from the experts so that the public understand the suffering of some—not all by a long shot—of the people that have served protecting us, serving our nation and our nation's interests. It would provide enforceable recommendations on how we can prevent these tragic and avoidable deaths.

Our ex-service men and women need our help and support to prepare them for life after the military. They need our help to manage their mental health and wellbeing and any injuries they bring home from service, to set them on new employment pathways and get them into stable housing. I acknowledge those working in my electorate. I acknowledge the staff of DVA, of Open Arms and of the Defence Community Organisation; health professionals like GP Dr Bernie Westley, himself a veteran; allied health professionals; and ex-service organisations in my electorate. They will be greatly helped by a real and holistic process, not a continued piecemeal approach to tackling veteran suicide.

Sometimes the financial cost of a royal commission comes up as a reason not to go there, but, quite frankly, it makes me a bit sick that a government that's just brought down a trillion-dollar budget warns the nation that a royal commission on veterans' suicide would cost up to $100 million. What price we pay for liberty and for making sure that our people and their families are well. It is past time for the Prime Minister to act. He should listen to the member for Fisher, who today said: 'The stats are so alarming. Why is this happening?' Yes, indeed—why? Why are these stats so bad? Why don't we have a holistic look at the whole continuum of support that we're giving our serving people? He also said he's got his own ideas about why it's happening, so I look forward to him sharing those with the royal commission.

I can also allay the fears of the member for Ryan, who said that the subject of this bill—the commissioner—could take evidence in private, unlike a full royal commission. I can assure him that, like the full royal commission into institutional child abuse, the Royal Commissions Act has been amended to allow private evidence for sensitive matters, so there are no barriers there. Let's not put any more barriers in front of what needs to happen here.

So I ask those opposite to keep an open mind on the need for a royal commission into veterans' suicide. We'll get there. We'll get to a holistic, independent assessment informed by the experts and the families of the members themselves. Their experience of service and sacrifice will really assist future generations of Anzacs. They'll give the parents of young Australians the confidence that the system is being reviewed and those that serve our nation will be looked after. After all, that is our covenant. We all agreed in this place that that is our covenant.

So we are backing the ADF. We're backing the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We are backing ex-service organisations. And we do acknowledge the significant work they have all done in improving the systems that help our serving men and women and their families. Those organisations can be assured that the health of their institutions ultimately will only benefit from a royal commission. But, most importantly, it is the health of our veterans and their families that will be greatly improved by a full and holistic review of the system, which is what I've heard from those opposite, those on this side—that's what I've heard from everyone today on this issue. All the speakers, who I respectfully listened to all day today, said that. It is the solemn hope of us all—I've heard it—that our veterans and their families are well; that they can serve with pride; that they can go on to live rich, fulfilling lives, just being totally awesome in the workplaces in which they work; and that they can get the help that they need. That is the solemn hope of all of us. I think that we'll be able to achieve that with a full royal commission, and that's why I support that. Lest we forget.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start out by thanking and acknowledging everyone who has served this country who's either in the ADF now or a veteran. It's an immense privilege to have witnessed this debate in the national parliament and watched the contributions from some of our veterans who are members of parliament—the member for Herbert, the member for Braddon, the member for Solomon and the member for Denison. I had the immense privilege of sitting in the chamber for those four contribution, and I feel almost inadequate following those heartfelt, personal contributions. I will spend my time talking about what veterans and their families have told me. I will start by acknowledging them and, especially, congratulating the member for Herbert for the anniversary he talked about. To come back from the dark place he was in, having served his nation, and to be such a leading voice in this debate is something that is really remarkable, and I congratulate him and thank him for what he's doing.

I only wish all debates in this place could be carried on in the manner in which this debate is being conducted. It is incredibly respectful. Everyone is acknowledging that everyone else contributing to this debate is coming from a good place and that everyone's focus is on how to look after Australia's veterans. We have a disagreement about whether we should begin with a standing commissioner or a royal commission. That's a fairly significant difference of opinion, but we've seen no over-the-top rhetoric and we've seen no disrespect to the other side. It's a genuine acknowledgement that people have different opinions about what should be done. I think this debate is parliament at its best.

There is a significant issue here, obviously. One suicide is too many and one suicide of a veteran is obviously of an order of magnitude more difficult for us to canvass. Without turning to clinical numbers, the stats are that in 2018 there were 33 veteran suicides and between 2001 and 2018 there were 465, and those are only the ones that are recorded. There are many, many more veteran suicides. The rate of homelessness among veterans is five times the national average. I had the wife of a veteran say to me that she knows many, many veterans who are medically discharged. Her anecdotal evidence was that every single medically discharged veteran had attempted suicide. So we should start by acknowledging what the problem is, and then we need to talk about how to solve it, how we can make a contribution in this place.

The member for Braddon, I think might have made this contribution, but it has been remarked often that, while veteran mental health has always been a massive challenge in this nation and in many other nations, it is getting more of a challenge as we get better at looking after the physical health of our veterans. Combatants in World War II, the Vietnam War or even Gulf War mark 1 who would have died had they suffered a blast are now surviving thanks to the great advances in military medical approaches and technology. But that, if anything, makes it a greater challenge to look after the mental health of veterans, because what they see and what they've been exposed to—the impact of percussive forces from explosions—are just a few examples of things that make this challenge even greater for us than it did perhaps for previous generations of policymakers.

We need to acknowledge that every family has some connection to a veteran in their community. Every family sees this challenge in different ways, from World War II veterans who came back from POW camps unable to talk about their experience, unable to really communicate what they saw, to modern veterans of recent wars. We now have more veterans from Afghanistan and Gulf War mark 2 than we do from Vietnam, for example.

This legislation is important, and I acknowledge that it seeks to help solve a problem, but I disagree with the basic contention that a standing commissioner is the best approach to this process. My firm view is we need a wide-ranging and well-resourced royal commission to look at the myriad of issues and to then guide and inform the establishment of a standing commissioner, if that's what the royal commission recommends. The truth is that the standing commissioner established in this bill does not have the same powers as a royal commission. In fact, the budget of the body in this legislation is half the budget of the average royal commission, just to give an indication of the different range of resources that are allocated to this. The commissioner is not independent. They are part of the Attorney-General's Department, which obviously makes it more challenging for them to really get to the nub of problems in particular government departments and the way that government departments serve our veterans. And, as other people have remarked, some people think there's a fundamental conflict between having a serving ADF officer or a Reserve officer fulfil that function. That is no reflection on the nominated commissioner—absolutely not. It is merely the status of someone from the ADF who's task, quite frankly, is to look at how the ADF treats veterans—both serving veterans and people who've left the ADF.

Finally, a standing commissioner, as constructed in this legislation, does not have the range of inquisitive powers, to get to the myriad of issues that make our veterans' lives so much harder and challenging. I want to go to that in some detail. At a mobile office I held last Friday at Lake Munmorah on the northern Central Coast, I met the wife of a veteran. She came to me to highlight all the challenges that she and her family face because of the myriad issues returned veterans have. Her husband was medically discharged as completely, totally and permanently incapacitated. He has the gold TPI card. She highlighted some of the issues that they face, and they are not just about DVA. This is a key point she was making. Any reform or legislation that's focused on how the Department of Veterans' Affairs treats veterans will miss other issues. She gave examples. Access to home care for families of veterans is limited and very bureaucratic. She talked about the interaction of the veteran system with Service NSW. She gave an example: because her husband has a gold card TPI, they get one free car registration a year. But the way the classification works under her husband's particular TPI is that it's not an automatic process. Service NSW don't automatically say that her husband is entitled to free registration. They have to get a letter each year from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. They take that letter to Service NSW, who say that it isn't constructed in the correct way. They then have to go back to DVA, who say that it is. Then they have to manage this argy-bargy for months on end before they get the correct language to get one free car registration. This might seem a relatively minor matter, but if the person having to do this is suffering from PTSD, the last thing they want to go through is this bureaucratic wrangling.

Other examples from this particular meeting I had involved psychiatrists. If you have PTSD and you're under a TPI, you've got access to psychiatric assistance. But the challenge in the Newcastle and Central Coast area is that there are no psychiatrists taking on new patients on the coast or in Newcastle. So there's a huge issue about access to mental health support. The person I had the meeting with also made the point that, even if you've got a gold card, the rates that the gold card pays health professionals is well under what they ask for normal consultations. So she was making the point that these health professionals really assist gold TPI recipients as a matter of giving something back to the nation. That's good, and we should applaud that, but we should fix this by paying appropriate commercial rates so those health professionals can get that support.

Another example is the vexed and challenging issue of child support, where many veterans go through a really entrenched process to get access to lump sum payments, and then, when that lump sum payment is paid, it comes into the child support system. That's not a reflection on the really important system that child support plays in this country in supporting kids and families. She was just making the point that the child support agency is not used to dealing with one-off lump sum payments, particularly for veterans who have received a TPI settlement. So that just adds to the stress and adds to the pressure on someone who is suffering from PTSD. Going through that process just makes it worse.

Another example is within DVA. DVA is now providing assistance with service dogs. I think everyone recognises the power of service dogs to really improve the mental health of returned veterans. The issue is that they will pay for training only if the dog is provided through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, so if you have a service dog through an internationally recognised organisation like Whiskey's Wish you will not get financial assistance to train that service dog. Again, this is an example where the bureaucracy that's been put in place hinders a good intention. Mail redirection—and I'm sorry to go into the minutiae but I think it's really important for someone who is not a veteran to say, 'I've heard from veterans and their families.' A veteran on the TPI gets one free mail redirection, but if it has the wife's name on it, if they're married, it's not free. How does that actually provide a service? These are all the sorts of issues that exacerbate the challenge for veterans in this country.

I met with the mum of an SAS veteran. This mum is a schoolteacher in my electorate. Her son served this country in the SAS, which is obviously the arm of the ADF, the Army, that has probably seen the most intense and traumatic service. He suffers from PTSD, and that trauma is so great that he cannot live in his country. Everything in his country reminds him of his service and his trauma. So he moved overseas. The Department of Veterans' Affairs, as part of his support, pays for mental health counselling. Unfortunately, this was just another example of the bureaucracy—until my office intervened and DVA came through in the end. He wanted to continue, via Zoom, mental health counselling with his counsellor from Perth. Obviously, the SAS barracks is in Perth, so he had an existing relationship with that counsellor. Instead, they insisted on him paying for counselling in his host country in South America, even though the Zoom counselling sessions were cheaper for the Commonwealth and were with someone experienced with Australian veterans' affairs. It took about four months of wrangling before we solved that problem. Again, this is just a small example of these impediments that make veterans' lives harder.

I got an email from someone last week. I won't use her name, because I haven't had time to seek her permission. She said to me:

As a mother of a young veteran I'm begging you to jump on board and be part of this royal commission, we owe this to our children, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers but mostly our mates , there needs to be more done , they are left in the cold by veterans affairs, they leave the adf and they are literally on their own they don't have that support network anymore , they spend years waiting for specialists appointments in pain, they spend countless hours with paper work, phone class letters of rejection against claims they have been begging for , they have put their body and minds on the line for our country only in the end to have multiple doors closed in their faces , by a group of people who have never served a day in their life and have no knowledge of serving , my son joined when he was 18 he was so proud and committed and now his life is the great unknown his legs are full of scars from multiple operations, I hope as a mother I never failed him , and as his mother I expect the same from our politicians

I think that's a very important sentiment. I have not served this country in the ADF. I cannot imagine the challenges veterans face, what they have gone through, but it is my job, my duty—like it's the duty of every other member of this parliament—to serve these veterans, to fight every day to ensure that we support them, to make sure that we are partners with them in mental health issues, in making sure they get all the support they need. That is the greatest way we can honour their sacrifice and their mates' sacrifice. I commend the bill, as amended, to the House.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up, I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. The government recognises that the death of any Australian Defence Force member or veteran is tragic for their family and is deeply felt by the entire community. The government is strongly committed to addressing the unacceptably high rates of suicide among ADF members and veterans and to supporting our ADF members and veterans during their service, in transitioning from service and in their lives beyond service.

The bills provide for the establishment of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention to inquire into and support the prevention of ADF member and veteran deaths by suicide. The national commissioner will have strong inquiry powers which are broadly equivalent to a royal commission. This will enable full inquiries into the circumstances of these tragic deaths, whether past or in the future. Like a royal commission, the national commissioner will be independent from government, being appointed by the Governor-General and having full discretion in the way their inquiries are conducted. Like a royal commission, the national commissioner can make findings and recommendations, including about any policy, legislative or other changes that are needed, and, like a royal commission, the national commissioner will have the power to compel the production of documents and take evidence under oath or affirmation. Like a royal commission, the national commissioner may also summon witnesses and hold public hearings and will have the power to refer potential breaches of law to enforcement bodies.

Unlike a royal commission, the national commissioner will be an enduring institution, with the power to monitor the implementation of recommendations into the future. The national commissioner will provide a report on their findings and recommendations to the parliament each year as well as other reports as they consider necessary. The government will be fully accountable, being required to report to the parliament on actions taken in response to the national commissioner's reports.

Importantly, the national commissioner will also provide an opportunity for families, ADF members and other people affected by ADF and veteran suicide deaths to tell their stories in a safe, supportive and trauma informed environment.

The government is committed to developing the legislation to establish the national commissioner in a consultative manner. A national public and stakeholder consultation process on the bills was conducted following the introduction of the bills on 27 August, until 24 September. Over 90 submissions were provided as part of this process. The valuable feedback that's been received from families, ADF members and veterans, and defence and veterans support organisations and others is being carefully considered and will inform any refinement of the bills during their passage through the parliament.

On 3 September, the bills were referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. The committee will deliver its report by 30 November. The government welcomes the committee's detailed consideration of this bill and looks forward to considering its findings in due course.

I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on these important bills.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blair has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.