Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015. Before I refer to the three clauses within the bill, I would like to add my comments on the issues associated specifically with those serving personnel and veterans and acknowledge what has been for many years a very strong bipartisan approach on the need for us to be ever more diligent in dealing with our serving personnel and veterans, especially those who in some way have been wounded in action or have become ill as a result of their military service.

This country stands proud—I do not know that we stand proud enough—in terms of our support for our military personnel. My comments are made partially as a member of the defence family. The first point I want to make relates to officers, non-commissioned officers and serving personnel with regard to their exit from active service whether they were in a war zone or involved in peacekeeping operations, or, indeed, whether they had no external deployment at all—and I want to come back to that point. I make particular reference to the apparent ignorance on the part of most veterans—young and older—of the role played by the DVA and their capacity to participate. In fact, it has been put to me that the vast majority of young people or older personnel either are not aware or do not avail themselves of the opportunity to record their presence and their data with the DVA when they leave military service. This is something for the DVA particularly and the ADF generally.

However, I believe there is also a responsibility on the personnel themselves to see the benefits that might accrue to them, if not immediately then at some time in the future, from registering with DVA and maintaining the currency of that registration and data. I say this because of the need not only for them personally but for their families into the future. As has been recorded in the discussion this morning, we must not overlook the role and importance of families supporting their serving or retired personnel. It does seem that a significant number of veterans, young and old, are not aware of the services that are available to them through the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

I want to acknowledge the very strong emotional link that Senator Lambie has brought to this debate, but I do want to take strong issue with Senator Lambie over her adverse comments about the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Ronaldson, and indeed the officials of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is my privilege to chair the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and I want to say to you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, that I have never in my time in the Senate seen a level of indifference or a lack of competence, concern or conscientiousness on behalf of the department. In the two years that Senator Ronaldson has been the minister, all I have ever had from him has been the highest level of concern and cooperation on any issue that I have had the occasion to raise with him. This includes the debate in Senate estimates. I in no way want to diminish the comments by Senator Lambie. It is within her entitlement. It is in the spirit of debate in this place. It enriches this place. But I do say to you that the issues that are of concern are best raised, I believe, in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration in the debate we have in this place and in Senate estimates so that we can all move towards the improvement that all of us in this place and in the other place and in the wider community want in the treatment of our veterans.

I want to comment on the transition from military to civilian life and particularly to employment, and I say this based on the experience of my own family and that of other young veterans with whom I have communicated. I believe there is still a lot more that we can do and need to do in the transition process of personnel from military service to civilian life, from military employment to civilian employment. At the risk of repeating myself, I include the importance of including families—that is parents; that is spouses; that is siblings; it is children; it is extended families—because the military is one area where it takes the entire extended family to support their military colleague or their military family member, and I extend that to the wider community. There is more that we can do in this country to assist military personnel to transition to civilian life. We know very well that, for whatever reason, over time, military personnel will transition to civilian life, whether that is due to their pending retirement, injury as a result of wounding in action, illness or whatever. As a member of the government and as a member of this Senate, I believe we can and must do more. The minister is well aware of my views on this.

I am not all that impressed by the rhetoric that goes on in other countries. We learned that in the United States, for example, there is a huge amount of information and rhetoric that comes out of the work that they do in transitioning their personnel from military to civilian life and employment. Having been in the United States, my own observation is that they also fall well short. But we have this capacity. I am particularly keen that our ADF and our Department of Veterans' Affairs consult widely with other countries to see what they are doing in that particular space. I speak of the need particularly in terms of transition to employment because, as you and others in this chamber well know, Mr Acting Deputy President, the skills that people accumulate in the military are eminently usable in civilian life. In fact, I am pleased to acknowledge that so much of what military personnel learn during their military training these days is applicable and indeed is recognised in prior learning and in the accumulation of certificates which assist them into their post-military life.

Specifically with regard to the legislation about which we are speaking, we all know, and I acknowledge the comments of Senator Fawcett, the critically important role that employment plays in the wellbeing of a person in the veteran circumstance and their ability to enjoy the self-esteem and the self-worth that it brings. One area that we must surely agree on is in our need and our objective to make sure that we are able, wherever possible, for gainful employment to be undertaken by these personnel. The Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme goes straight to that objective of gainful employment and gainful vocational development for military veterans. It is a voluntary scheme. It is there for people eligible under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. If veterans are not aware of the services available to them from the Department of Veterans' Affairs then they are bound to not be able to avail themselves of this particular services. In the discussion that I have heard in this debate today it does not seem to me that this issue is in any way controversial. We do know that there are many issues associated with the need for useful, gainful employment that is so good for the wellbeing of the person as they find themselves in need of this rehabilitation.

It has been of interest to me in terms of post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. Some information that was made available to our committee recently was that more than 50 per cent of serving and retired military personnel who record the fact that they are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder have never deployed outside our country. I do not know the reasons for this, but what I do applaud is the funding that has been expended in trying to come to an understanding of why that might be the case. I acknowledge that under this minister there has been the allocation of a $5 million fund for the transition and wellbeing study in association with the Department of Defence. I know that there have been other reports that have been commissioned and indeed have been released, but we need to understand a lot more about these issues, particularly as they relate to the transition from Defence to civilian life.

The third point of the legislation that we are discussing in the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015 does relate to correcting a wrong. It will give Australia the capacity to repatriate the remains of those people currently buried at the Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia whose families would like to have them repatriated back to Australia. I again applaud the Prime Minister and Minister Ronaldson for the initiative that they took in addressing this issue. We know it is very sensitive. We know that there are some families who would prefer that the remains of their loved ones stayed in this very well-tended cemetery in Malaysia. I acknowledge the effort of the Malaysian government and people and the respect that they accord to those people through the maintenance of that facility, but for those families who wish to have their family members repatriated back to Australia this must surely right a wrong with a long history in Vietnam.

I want to come to the question of the single appeal path. I have to say that I am somewhat confused, because in the other place the Labor opposition supported this measure. Yet we now find that here in the Senate they apparently are not willing to support it. We have heard the contribution of Senator Lambie in relation to what she would regard as being severe discrimination against those who undertake the single appeal path. We have just heard the commentary from Senator Xenophon, himself of course with a medicolegal background, in which he also expressed those concerns. I hope the minister will address the question when he has the opportunity to conclude this debate, but I just want to open my comments regarding the single appeal path with the conclusion that has been presented to me: that the proposed arrangements contained in the single appeal path have the strong endorsement of the veteran and ex-service community. If that is the case, I hope that the minister will give us evidence and will validate the information and the advice that he and his departmental officers have to support that comment that the proposed arrangements have the strong endorsement of the veteran and ex-service community. If that is the case, it does cast some doubt on the comments of others in this place who have opposed it.

As I understand it, the proposed amendment refines the current dual appeal path under the MRCA so that there is a single path of review—those who are dissatisfied with the primary decision as determined by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission can seek a review of that decision by the Veterans' Review Board and then there is a further right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Both Senator Lambie and Senator Xenophon have raised the point that a person making such an appeal to the Veterans' Review Board cannot get any financial assistance, particularly if they wish to obtain specialist medical advice to support their appeal. Again, I would be anxious for the minister to respond and provide that advice. I am also mindful of the comments made by Senator Xenophon with regard to legal representation. The only comment that I would make is that I hope that the change from support of to opposition to this measure by the opposition, and by Senator Xenophon for that matter, is not based around the needs of lawyers representing people but genuinely around the needs of those veterans who wish to go down the appeal path. As it has been presented to me, the current system of dual appeals was arrived at by default because, at the time the MRCA was developed, no single preferred model could be established. It is the complexities of this dual path that make the choices less than straightforward and add a level of concern for the applicant. If it is the case that the single appeal process does have the strong endorsement of the veteran and ex-service community, that point needs to be elevated in this place. The issue certainly needs to be ventilated and the criticisms by others need to be responded to.

I want to conclude my comments by making a point that is so obvious in this place and in this country. I refer to the wider community's deep respect for serving and past serving personnel from our military services. I again want to acknowledge the efforts of this minister and his department in the work that they have undertaken with the commemorations relating to the centenary of Gallipoli in April this year: the $16 million contribution by the government to support community-based commemorations as part of the Centenary of Anzac through the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program; the commemoration next year of the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan in Vietnam, which was so pivotal in that particular war and in defining the role of those very brave young Australians who fought it; and the construction of the Sir John Monash Centre at Villers-Bretonneux in France. As we know, Monash, at the time that he took control of the Australian combined forces for the first time in the Battle of Le Hamel on 4 July 1918, created military history by bringing together for the first time the combined use of artillery, tanks, infantry and aircraft to bring a battle to its conclusion. He said to General Haig that he would conclude the battle in 90 minutes. He failed to conclude it in 90 minutes—it took him 93 minutes. This was after many months in which the allies had been trying to take control of Le Hamel.

I make these points because they point to the deep respect that Australians have for our serving personnel and our military veterans. I conclude where I started: that is to say that if this bill and those associated with it can encourage those leaving military service to register, retain and remain with the DVA by ensuring that their registration remains current and that data around them remains available so that if and when they or the members of their family believe they need the assistance that the Australian community wants to offer them, then it is readily available.