Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I agree with Senator Seselja that it is very important that we honour the fallen, and the provisions in this bill for the repatriation of veterans' remains and enhancements to the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme are unambiguously good measures and I commend the government for bringing those measures forward. However, I do have concerns in relation to schedule 2 of the bill which I will outline shortly. I think that we need to look at this, because, for whatever reason, the parliament, the Senate, did not do its due diligence, in a sense, in looking at some of those measures, and it has now become apparent that there are issues in respect of those. This is not a criticism of the government or the opposition or the cross-benches; it is just that we did not consider some of the unintended consequences of those provisions. So I cannot support schedule 2 for a number of reasons and believe it ought to be referred to a committee.

I spoke to the Labor shadow minister for veterans' affairs, David Feeney, on the weekend, who outlined his concerns. I thought they were sensible concerns. He was not criticising the government; he was simply saying that there appear to be some issues with it that we need to sort out to see if there are unintended consequences. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposition to put in relation to this. I suggest that the most appropriate way of dealing with this is to put schedule 2 to one side, and then the other aspects of the bill are not controversial—that are indeed welcome—ought to be able to be passed.

These are the problems I have in relation to schedule 2. The Veterans' Affairs Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015 proposes to take away one of two appeal pathways for DVA decisions: the ability to have a decision by DVA reviewed internally by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. Instead, the only review pathway available will involve an application to the Veterans' Review Board. From there, the applicant can take their case to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT.

The bill also raises the issue of costs. A consequence of the way this bill has been put together—in particular, the removal of the internal review pathway—may not have been thought through by those proposing the legislation, because what this means is that, even in the most complex and serious cases, a veteran who has had their claims denied and wishes to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal cannot be awarded costs, even if they are to cover the expense of getting the medical reports necessary to prove their case. For those who are familiar with medico-legal work and compensation claims, a medical report can be very expensive. That is not a criticism of the specialist; but, if you are getting a thorough report from a medical specialist, it may cost you several thousand dollars because of the time involved in preparing that report. The veteran should not have to pay for that, particularly if they have been successful in their case.

There is no capacity under the VRB pathway for a veteran, no matter how unjust the earlier decision made and no matter if they have proved DVA's decision wrong, to receive an award of costs at the AAT. This is unlike other compensation schemes in Australia, such as, most strikingly, Comcare, where an injured public servant facing a similar decision to the veteran can be awarded costs if successful at the AAT. The fundamental question I ask is: why would the government treat injured veterans less favourably than other injured Commonwealth workers? Why should they be treated differently? I suggest, respectfully, that a mistake was made when this was being thought through. That is why it is important that this bill goes to a committee for inquiry. Appeal pathways are an essential element of the transparency and accountability of departmental decision makers. Any changes to these appeal pathways must be considered carefully and must not act to prejudice an injured service man or woman's ability to access compensation and other benefits.

I have spoken many times in this place about the importance of compensation that is fair and just. There is the continuing issue, the shameful issue, of veterans of and participants in the British nuclear tests at Maralinga. While there has been some progress towards getting compensation and appropriate cover for these people and their families, there is still a long way to go. These veterans must not be forgotten when we consider the impact of legislation such as this.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has also failed to honour—through governments of both persuasions, I must say, since post World War II—the service of thousands of Australian diggers who carried out the dangerous occupation of Japan in the years following the end of the hostilities of World War II. My constituent Max Burgess has bravely fought for British Commonwealth Occupation Force veterans to have full repatriation benefits extended to him and his comrades, and I congratulate Max on his tremendous efforts. But, for what can only be called narrow, bureaucratic reasons, backed stubbornly by successive governments from both sides of politics, they have not been granted due recognition. As the Department of Defence found in 2010, the Commonwealth government promised these BCOF veterans full recognition. The DVA has been blocking this dwindling number of veterans from receiving the full thanks of the people of Australia—as indeed has been the case with Maralinga veterans as well.

Returning to this provisions of this bill, I am especially concerned about the potential impact on the time it will take for appeals to be processed and finalised. Let's take the case of Veronica Wadley, who was serving as a private in the ADF when she was raped by a colleague. I can mention her case because it has been the subject of media attention, including a terrific investigative piece, a feature in the Weekend Australian Magazine,several years ago. Veronica reported the crime to her superiors and to the police. For standing up for herself and insisting the crime be investigated, she was pushed out of the ADF and left to fend for herself. Veronica was raped in 2006. Nearly six years later, after being refused twice, her compensation claim was finally approved. There are many, many problems with the way Veronica was treated during this time. For instance, it took DVA nearly a year to refuse Veronica's claim. That is very different from compensation tribunals around the country where there are strict time limits.

Veronica made two further requests in 2007 and 2009 but did not receive a second rejection until February of 2010. Her claim was finally approved in August 2012. During those six years, Veronica had to pay for her own counselling and medical treatment. Her mental state was such that she could not work. The department's unacceptable and shameful delay nearly ruined her. This is unacceptable. There is currently an inquiry into the mental health of ADF personnel. Obviously, it is a matter for the committee to report on that inquiry, but I think some of the evidence that has been given to date indicates that there is real scope for sensible, practical and fair reforms so that victims of ADF abuse, when it does happen, and victims of injuries in the ADF are dealt with properly and decently. It is important that we consider that in the context of this bill.

This bill has got some welcome provisions. Schedule 2 concerns me greatly, because I think it will lead to anomalies. It is anomalous that a veteran fighting for their rights and winning a case will be left high and dry when it comes to legal costs and disbursements, but a Commonwealth public servant otherwise would be in a much better position. That is an anomaly that must be rectified. I hope that the government, in the spirit in which I make these comments, can understand the need for schedule 2 to be revisited and for those issues and those problems to be dealt with satisfactorily.

So I hope that the government acknowledges the need for a closer look at schedule 2. We can deal with those parts of the bill that are unambiguously uncontroversial. I hope that there is a sense of understanding of the need for reform of some of these provisions and the broader reform of veterans' entitlements as well.