Senate debates

Monday, 7 September 2015

Bills

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015; Second Reading

10:02 am

Photo of Jan McLucasJan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015. Labor supports the majority of measures in this bill because they represent a modest improvement to entitlements of and services to veterans. However, we have concerns about schedule 2 and think it appropriate that it be referred to a committee for further examination.

The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the VEA, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the MRCA, and the Defence Act 1903, the Defence Act, to: expand the range of services available under the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme—the VVRS—and make changes to the way certain periods of work undertaken as part of the VVRS, income earned from that work and periods of unemployment affect the rate of disability pension and/or service pension paid to participants; and create a single path of review for original determinations made under the MRCA and allow the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to amend regulation 31 of the Defence Force Regulations 1952 so as to provide for the repatriation of the remains of service dependants buried in the Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia. Schedule 1 amends the VEA to: expand the range of services available under the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme and make changes to the way periods of work undertaken as part of the VVRS, income earned from that work and periods of unemployment affect the rate of disability pension and/or service pension paid to participants. These changes were announced in the 2015-16 budget.

The VVRS has been administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs since the mid-1990s and was introduced to meet concerns that younger veterans were being accepted as totally and permanently incapacitated for work without being provided with opportunities for vocational rehabilitation. It is a voluntary scheme aimed at assisting eligible veterans to find or maintain paid employment. The scheme is intended for former members of the Australian Defence Force with qualifying service, or those about to leave the ADF. The ADF has its own rehabilitation scheme for serving members. The VVRS is separate to other rehabilitation services provided under schemes such as the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. Veterans cannot undertake vocational rehabilitation under the VVRS concurrently with any other vocational rehabilitation program.

VVRS services include: assistance in assessing and updating a veteran's skills, job-seeking techniques and interview skills; and assistance to increase hours of work in an existing position, or, where the veteran is having difficulty coping, to manage the situation or look at alternative options. Assistance is provided to find suitable employment before the transition from the ADF to the civilian workforce and for skill development or assistance in gaining recognition for skills to assist in finding employment. While the VVRS is not restricted to those with disability, as a rehabilitation service it is targeted at those with impairments that can affect an individual's ability to find and/or maintain employment. As such, many VVRS participants may also be in receipt of payments from DVA in respect of their impairment, particularly the veterans' disability pension and the invalidity service pension.

There are two key changes proposed by schedule 1. The first is to allow intermediate rate disability pension recipients participating in the VVRS to have paid employment of up to 20 hours a week disregarded for the purposes of calculating any disability pension rate reduction. This aligns the disregarded work income with the work test that applies to intermediate rate pensioners. Currently, intermediate rate disability pensioners have any income from paid employment over eight hours a week used in the calculation of their rate reduction—the same as special rate disability pensioners. The amendment will mean that an intermediate rate pensioner participating in the VVRS cannot receive a lower rate of disability pension than an intermediate rate pensioner who has not participated in the VVRS. It will actually provide a greater financial incentive for intermediate rate pensioners to participate in the VVRS and to find paid employment, as a greater number of hours can be worked and more income earned before the veteran's pension rate is reduced.

The second key change is to set the maximum reduction for a special rate disability pensioner who is participating in the VVRS and in paid work of more than eight hours but less than 20 hours a week to the intermediate rate, rather than 100 per cent of the general rate. Special rate disability pensioners participating in the VVRS with less than 20 hours of paid work a week will receive a pension rate calculated under the current method or the intermediate rate, whichever is the higher. Again, this is aimed at ensuring a special rate pensioner participating in the VVRS and undertaking less than 20 hours of work a week will not receive a lower rate of pension than an intermediate rate pensioner who is not participating in the scheme. Both of these key changes are beneficial to intermediate and special rate pensioners participating in the VVRS, and they will provide an added financial incentive for veterans to engage with the scheme and the workforce.

The other amendments proposed by the schedule will include specific references in the VEA to medical management and psychosocial services, which will be made available through the VVRS from 20 March 2016, and will ensure periods of unemployment of six months or more will be disregarded in determining different periods of employment used in calculating the amount of income assessed under the invalidity service pension income test for participants in the VVRS. This latter amendment refers to the two-year initial period of employment in which only 50 per cent of income is assessed under the income test, and the following five-year period in which the percentage of assessed income gradually increases. This will ensure that participants in the VVRS will not have prolonged absences from the workforce treated as part of their employment period.

Schedule 2 will create a single review pathway for original determinations made under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004—the MRCA—removing the option for internal reconsideration by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and allowing only for review by the Veterans' Review Board. It is fundamental to Labor that the compensation system for injured veterans', including the appeal system, is balanced and fair. The system must also operate without unnecessary delays because delays exacerbate hardship.

The appeal rights of injured veterans who are refused a claim for compensation by DVA are significantly changed by schedule 2 of this bill. There have been genuine questions raised about whether the changes are balanced or fair. I am concerned, and Labor is concerned, that the consequences of the changes in schedule 2 have not been properly examined. The community and the parliament are entitled to know whether these changes will make the situation better or worse for injured workers and so they should be properly examined by an appropriately thorough inquiry.

By way of background, an injured veteran denied benefits currently has two options to appeal a decision that has denied them compensation benefits. Option 1 provides internal reconsideration by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. If the veteran is not happy with an internal reconsideration decision they have a right, same as under Comcare, to seek an independent review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. For veterans who choose this path, if they prove a DVA decision wrong at the AAT the veteran is able to be awarded reimbursement of the reasonable costs of medical reports and legal representation they needed to substantiate their case. Option 2 is a review by the Veterans' Review Board. This currently takes 18 months to two years. If a veteran has elected this path and is dissatisfied, they can still pursue independent review by the AAT; however, veterans' who choose this path cannot be awarded reimbursement of their costs of challenging a DVA decision.

I now go to why schedule 2 should be closely examined by a committee before a vote is taken on this schedule in the Senate. The Senate inquiry into the mental health of Australian Defence Force personnel heard evidence in recent weeks that has highlighted the way in which delays and poor DVA decision making in the compensation process adds to the mental stress of veterans. In light of this, it is critical that the Senate is satisfied that the measures in the bill will improve the appeals system as the government promises. I refer to page 9 of Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest, which is headed 'Key issues and provisions'. It states:

… while implementing Recommendation 17.1 of the Review for a single appeal path, the proposed amendments ignore Recommendation 17.2 for internal reconsideration by the MRCC to be the first step in this review process. Instead, the proposed amendments will remove internal reconsideration by the MRCC from the appeals process altogether …

While ex-service organisations are supportive of the move to a single pathway, many have previously stated their support for an internal reconsideration component to be included as part of this appeals process.

It is unclear whether ex-service organisations have changed their position or whether they support veterans' not being able to be awarded their costs at the AAT.

Schedule 3 amends the Defence Act 1903 to expand the regulation-making power under paragraph 124(1) to authorise, under regulation 31 of the Defence Force Regulations 1952, for the repatriation of the remains of eight service dependants buried at Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia, if requested to do so by their families. The Terendak Military Cemetery is located within a Malaysian military base, the Terendak Camp, on the coast of the Malacca Straits, approximately 21 kilometres north of Malacca. Terendak Camp was built by the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand during 1957-59 to house the 28th Commonwealth Infantry Brigade. Of the 521 Australians killed in the Vietnam War, 496 were repatriated to Australia with full military honours. There are 24 Australian servicemen buried at Terendak, Malaysia and one other buried at Kranji War Cemetery in Singapore. These 25 soldiers are the only remaining Australian servicemen killed during the Vietnam War who have not been returned to their families for burial. During the early days of the Vietnam War, a family would have had their son's body sent home only if they—his next of kin—or a benefactor were willing and able to pay 500 pounds for his repatriation to Australia. If families could not afford this, the soldier would be buried in Terendak in Malaysia.

In January 1966, the Australian government resolved that all soldiers killed in Vietnam were to be returned to Australia at the expense of the Commonwealth. After a public campaign by the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia—Operation Bring Them Home—and other ex-service organisations, and long-running negotiations between the Australian and Malaysian governments, the government announced in May 2015 that it would repatriate the remains of the 25 Australian Vietnam veterans buried overseas, where this was the wish of the deceased's family. As the Terendak Military Cemetery is difficult to access—being within a large Malaysian military base and requiring special permission to visit—the Australian government also extended the offer to repatriate remains to the families of the other three Australian servicemen and eight service dependants buried there.

Labor has continued to support the government's offer to repatriate the remains of deceased Vietnam veterans buried in the Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia and in the Kranji War Cemetery in Singapore if requested to do so by the families. As we move into the 51st year since the first Australian serviceman was killed in the Vietnam War, we must remember that we owe these men, and their families, an enduring obligation and respect for the sacrifice they made.

As I said in my introduction, Labor supports the majority of measures in this bill because they represent a modest improvement to the entitlements of and services to veterans. However, we believe there is reason to examine the measures in schedule 2 more closely. It is fundamental to Labor that the compensation system for injured veterans, including the appeal system, is balanced and fair. The system must also operate without unnecessary delays, because delays exacerbate hardship. The appeal rights of injured veterans who are refused a claim for compensation by DVA are significantly changed by schedule 2 of this bill. There have been genuine questions raised about whether the changes are balanced or fair. I am concerned that the consequences of the changes in schedule 2 have not been properly examined. The community and the parliament are entitled to know whether these changes will make the situation better or worse for injured workers, and they should be properly examined by an appropriately thorough committee.

10:18 am

Photo of David FawcettDavid Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budgetary Measures) Bill gives effect to a number of veterans' affairs measures that the government promised in the 2015 budget. It builds on the support that the coalition has had for veterans' affairs, both during the Howard government and the period in opposition, and as we have come in to government. As I said in my maiden speech coming into this place, having spent over two decades in the ADF, I believe that it is important that loyalty flows both ways. We expect loyalty from our servicemen to the government of the day. The government of the day, whichever side, owes a loyalty back to those people who have served this nation and to their families. It is good to see a largely bipartisan approach to this bill to make sure that measures are at least incrementally, if not in one fell swoop, improved for veterans.

I want to acknowledge the many people from the various ESOs who are consistent in their advocacy for veterans and their families, from the TPI Federation, Defence Force Welfare Association, RSL, Vietnam Veterans Association right through to Men's' Sheds organisations. Barry Heffernan in South Australia advocates on behalf of people who have been abused in defence. There are many people who invest a lot of their time and effort, and I just want to acknowledge at the start of my contribution on this bill that many of the measures that are brought forward by the Parliament of Australia are as a result of the hard work and passion of people who care deeply for our service and ex-service communities. The budget for this year made an investment of more than $12 billion in services for veterans and their families that will have a significant focus on bringing intervention earlier. Early intervention has been proven time and again to have good outcomes, and I will be talking about a number of the measures relating to that.

The other thing it has done is it has expanded case coordination or case management, particularly for complex cases. I sat through a couple of days of hearings last week with the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee looking at mental health concerns for serving men and women, and naturally that also looked at those in transition as well as many veterans. What became very apparent is that it is a complex system—that alone is something we need to continue to try to improve—and because of the complexity of the system, some individuals have had dreadful experiences with both defence and veterans' affairs. I would say these experiences happened largely in the past, although clearly that is not uniquely true.

One of the things that became very clear was that those who have had good experiences with DVA, particularly in recent times, are the ones who have had a case manager appointed. There has been someone who has taken a greater deal of responsibility within the system to make sure that each element of that veteran's care is coordinated and followed up so that that person actually receives timely and considered responses rather than having to deal with countless different people within the veterans' affairs system, rather than having to deal with countless different groups and having to repeat their story, or finding that their case files are lost or delayed or sent interstate. Obviously the appointment of case coordinators makes a significant difference, and I am pleased that the budget measures from 2015 have increased investment in that. I would like to see us get to the point where the appointment of a case manager is best practice and applied for all people who are dealing with DVA. Obviously the simpler cases mean it will be a low workload for the case manager, but for those who need it—certainly for those people who come to DVA, they and their families often are at a crisis point when anxiety or depression or PTSD or some other issue has brought them to the point where they realise that they need help. The last thing they need is for an administrative system that does not gather all the bits together and support them through the process.

One of the most significant things to help people in that area is advocacy, and so before I go on to the remainder of the actual bill, I just want to highlight the context of some of these other budget measures and the difference that has made. Again, during the committee's hearings we heard that many people would not have made progress through the DVA system at all, or effectively—we heard of a number of people who had claims rejected or the process slowed down because they had not filled in forms properly, and so clearly well-trained and well-resourced advocates are an essential part of this system to support veterans and their families. It was good to see in this budget the restoration of $1 million per annum in the BEST program, the Building Excellence in Support and Training program, which supports advocacy in welfare work. The budget has prioritised early intervention, which is important, as well as expanding the services provided by Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service. We heard countless testimony from serving members, and particularly veterans and their families, about VVCS and the great work that they do. One of the consistent messages, though, was that many people were unaware that they were eligible for the service and were unaware about what the service can provide. There was a deal of discussion on both of the days of last week's hearings around how we could make sure that veterans and, more to the point, veterans' families, or the families of serving members, could be made aware of the services that are available to them.

I am pleased to see, again, as part of this year's budget measures, that there is a dedicated website and a Facebook page for the VVCS, and an expansion of the e-health services for veterans and service providers. There is also a broadening of DVA's reach on social media through dedicated YouTube channels and Facebook pages, including short videos focusing on the services provided by DVA to families. There have been a number of measures—even down to as basic as writing to people when they discharge to advise them of the services and support available from DVA. This communication is critical. There is no point having all the services in the world if the people who need them are not aware that they are there, so these measures are very welcome. There has also been work with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners to improve materials that support GPs to identify service-related issues so that through that initial point of contact with the primary health care system, which is often the GP, wherever possible, we identify the fact that an individual has served their nation, and therefore they can either be referred to DVA or VVCS, and we can help link them in with those systems through having GPs act as that first point of referral.

Another significant investment is improving access for those with mental health conditions such as PTSD and anxiety and depression so that without having to lodge a claim and demonstrate an award of compensation, somebody can access the treatment they need immediately. We heard some dreadful stories of people in the past who had their conditions exacerbated by the fact that they had to fight a battle just to even access treatment, let along compensation. The investment that has occurred to streamline that process so that anyone on presentation with those issues can get treatment is welcome. What we need to be seeing is an increase in capacity, because clearly as we have more people serving—impacting on greater numbers of families, and reservists and reservists' families—the demand on that system will grow. So it is important to make sure that the capacity is there within VVCS or others to be able to support people. The pilot of the veterans' employment rehabilitation program is important as a pathway to helping people get back into work, and that relates a little bit to the topic of this bill, which we will get onto, and cutting red tape and making it easier for veterans to prove their identity when making a claim with DVA. These are all measures coming out of the budget which are welcome for our veterans and service members, particularly those in transition.

This bill has a number of measures. The first will benefit veterans through the enhancements to the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This is a voluntary scheme that is designed to assist veterans to find or continue in suitable employment, and I will talk a little bit more about that. The enhancements to the scheme will expand the range of services, including medical management and psychological services, and they will also have an impact on the thresholds for special and intermediate rate disability pensioners by having a smoother stepdown so that there is more advantage to somebody choosing to work. We have heard people in the last week give testimony that the ability to get back into the workforce without having to worry about what is going to happen to your support pension, particularly if you have to withdraw from the workforce later, is a huge benefit to both individual veterans and their families. Anything that we can do to make that better is welcomed. We will also be looking at streamlining the appeals process under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, and I will talk about that later.

Finally, the bill amends the Defence Act for the repatriation of the remains of service dependants buried in the Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia. If requested by the families of the deceased, we can bring those people and servicemen back to Australia. That is because of the unique situation of that base being a high security base, similar to our bases here, where access by dependants and the public is not easy. The Malaysian government have generously worked with us and agreed to cooperate with Australia to allow that repatriation, should the families so wish.

Schedule 1 of this bill looks particularly at the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme. Rehabilitation is provided under part 6A of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. What it basically sets up is a situation where people who participate in the voluntary scheme, the VVRS, who withdraw from the workforce for any reason will return to the rate of disability pension they received prior to their participation in the VVRS. One of the concerns that has been raised with me time and again is by people saying, 'We'd be happy to get into work, but we don't want to go through the battle again to re-establish our eligibility for that support.' So you have this awful dilemma where people who would like to work, and perhaps are capable of doing more work, see the nightmare of the battle that they had as such a barrier that they do not want to take the risk of having to repeat that. This scheme provides an opportunity for people to say, 'Look, I'd like to participate in it, I'd like to work, but I know I've got the safety net there that if I do have to withdraw either because I'm not managing or even because I've just retired, then I can go back to it.'

One of the things we have had in the past to encourage participation is that recipients of the special rate disability pension can undertake work beyond the threshold of more than eight hours but less 20 hours per week without losing the entitlement to that disability pension's associated benefits. But the step down in the amount of pension that they do start to lose over time has been tapered so that after a period of time, over a seven-year period, it eventually would back to 100 per cent of the general rate. We are trying to simplify that process and so make it more attractive for people to work so that, as they work, the default position they come back to—those on a special rate, as they exceed the threshold in terms of the number of hours worked and that income is no longer exempt, rather than having to apply for the intermediate rate they automatically go to that rate while they are continuing to work above that threshold. That means there is less red tape, it is a smoother process; they end up with that safety net so that should they then have to come back under the threshold or give up work altogether, they will still come back to the full payment that they were on previously.

The other enhancement to the VVRS that we are looking at is to expand the range of services available to include the provision of medical management and psychosocial services. The medical management involves the monitoring and treatment measures to restore or maximise a person's physical and psychological function. This is important because, whether it is pain management or disability counselling or even family education, these are all factors that help in the process of rehabilitation. We are actually trying to get people back on their feet, trying to get them back into the workforce. This is not so that they are not a burden on the government—some people see this as a cynical effort to say, 'We just want you back working'—but because the proven evidence, and the evidence we have received from veterans and their families, is that when people are capable of work and they do work, then it is better for them, for their own self-esteem, for their own psychological wellbeing, and it is also better for their families. This is about trying to make that process easier while still keeping that important safety net in place and wrapping those additional services around them.

The second measure that the opposition has expressed some concern over is the appeal process. I would like to step back to the fact that under the former government there was a review of MRCA, which was conducted in 2012, and one of the recommendations was a streamlining of the appeal process. That recommendation was accepted by the former government, which then triggered the consultation, and I give them full credit for that. It was a comprehensive consultation with ESOs to say, 'This is the recommendation the review has come up with. What is your view of that?' All of the major ESOs who were consulted in the 2012-13 period came back and said they supported this approach, in terms of streamlining and having one process rather than the parallel option, before people actually went to the AAT. The government's position is that there has been an inquiry into MRCA and there has been consultation with ESOs, and the strong support of those organisations would indicate that the recommended path, the path that is now captured in this legislation, is the path that we should be moving forward on. I would certainly encourage senators here to support the recommendation because it has been the subject of an inquiry and it has been the subject of consultation. If issues emerge I see no reason, given the strong bipartisan approach we have around veterans' affairs, why it could not be revisited, but I see no point in delaying the implementation of something that has been recommended from a review and has been supported through consultation by ESO groups. I think that would make sense. Certainly the delay is a real issue. At the inquiry we had last week, we heard a number of people talk about the debilitating impact that delays in assessments and appeals had. Whilst I know it has been raised, and both sides of politics in the past have pushed back on the idea of having set time frames for assessing a claim before the default position is that it is awarded in favour of a veteran, my understanding is that other comparable nations—such as the UK—have a system where there is a time frame. If there is to be an inquiry of any kind, I would say that would be a good topic to have an inquiry into to see how that could work, what the benefits are and what the downsides are. If we had a time frame that had to be complied with or it would default in the veterans' favour, my sense is that it would remove a significant cause of frustration, anxiety and additional harm that occurs to veterans. It would allow people to move on and allow the process to move from stage to stage, whether that was to an appeal or whether that was continuing with both rehabilitation treatment and compensation where appropriate.

I do support the measures in this bill. They give effect to a number of long-term commitments of this government, which are not only in the policy that we took to the election but also, importantly, have been through the budget measures that have been brought down. Whether it is the expansion of the programs or the streamlining and the removing of red tape, it is an example of us incrementally moving to that point where the loyalty is flowing both ways, both from the service to the government and the government to the service. (Time expired)

10:38 am

Photo of Jacqui LambieJacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015. Before I turn to the detail of the legislation, I will make some general comments about the management of veterans' affairs by the Abbott government. The common feedback I receive from Australian veterans or former members of the Australia Defence Force, who have risked their lives and faced our enemies, is they would rather face the Taliban than face the Department of Veterans' Affairs. How damning! I note that, while we had 60,000 veterans serving in Vietnam, in the last 15 years, including the peacekeeping roles in Africa, the Solomon Islands, East Timor and the war in the Middle East, about 70,000 young Australians have put their lives on the line in peacekeeping, warlike or war zones. In Michael Ronaldson, Australia has one of the least caring and most incompetent veterans' affairs ministers to ever be appointed to that very important position, especially when you consider the large number of Australians affected by his dysfunctional and flawed management of his dysfunctional and flawed government department. If Australian veterans were not unnecessarily dying, self-harming and being forced to live rough on the streets in record numbers, then the management of Australia's Department of Veterans' Affairs could well be thought of as a bloody joke that could easily inspire many episodes of a national comedy TV show in the style of Yes, Prime Minister. But, unfortunately, the needless heart-breaking suicides, the gut-wrenching family break-ups, the family violence, the drug addictions, the homelessness and the jailing of veterans in our community inspire nothing but a feeling of dread, deep depression and a desire to rage against this filthy national shame.

In my office in Burnie I have one electorate officer dedicated to helping veterans from all over Australia. We have created nearly 300 cases on file in just one year. I have just participated in a series of public hearings that examined the plight of our veterans. My comments are not out of line or over the top. The Department of Veterans' Affairs, though criminal mismanagement and under-resourcing, has made the lives of many of our veterans and their families a living bloody hell, a misery few Australians can understand until they are confronted with the whole truth, which can only be revealed by a royal commission into defence abuse and veterans' welfare.

Of course this Liberal government—and I strongly suspect a future Labor government—will fight very hard not to hold a proper public inquiry into the bureaucratic and administrative mess that has become the Department of Veterans' Affairs or shine a light on the wicked crimes committed by rapists and criminals in the Defence Force—some of whom are still serving in senior ranks—who have preyed upon the weak and the voiceless. Those crimes were covered up or turned a blind eye to by those in the highest leadership positions in Australia, including our federal Governor-General and the New South Wales state Governor-General. Volume 2 of the DLA Piper review mentions the existence of 33 top secret books containing the worst sexual assaults, abuse and crimes in our military history that prove former Chiefs of Defence Cosgrove and Hurley 'did nothing to bring justice to the hundreds of Australian Defence Force victims of gross abuse and sexual assaults'.

It is interesting to note that should a royal commission by some miracle be established into defence abuse and veterans' welfare, two of our Governor-Generals would most likely be key witnesses. Indeed under our laws, in order to establish a royal commission, our highest government representative would have to give official approval to an investigation where he and a fellow state Governor-General would most likely be a key witness. And not only him, but many serving and former senior members of the Australian Defence Force would also likely be called to give evidence, so it is no wonder that the recommendations from the Defence Abuse Taskforce—once again from a former senior military man; not an independent party with no conflict of interest—are, surprise, surprise, against the establishment of a royal commission into defence abuse. My question to all those former senior ADF commanders who are actively working to stop a proper investigation into crimes, which happened on their watch and were clearly covered up from public and parliamentary scrutiny, is this: what do you have to hide?

I now turn to this government's Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015, especially schedule 2. A letter I recently sent to the minister neatly summarises the situation. I stated to Senator Ronaldson:

Dear Senator Ronaldson,

I am writing in regards to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015 that is scheduled for the Senate Program on 7 September 2015.

This legislation, in particular Schedule 2, strips veterans of appeal rights and gives DVA more power to frustrate and deny claims without independent review of their decisions. This results in a single and inferior pathway for appeals (through the VRB only) and replaces the current arrangement, which provides an injured veteran with dual pathways. The current pathway, which this legislation will abolish, may not be ideal, but it is better than the VRB process. This Bill removes any ability for veterans to seek independent help during the veterans' compensation review process.

  …   …   …

Listed below are responses we have received in relation to this proposed legislation pointing out numerous areas of concern.

Slater and Gordon Lawyers

    bloody—

      that is if they are eligible—

      legal aid is means tested, and no lawyers with skills and relevant experience will be able to afford to do the work at rates paid by legal aid.

        Even if they are successful at their appeal, they will not be able to recover their own money back to fight.

          And it clearly does not work.

              And I will not put a price on a life.

                KCI Lawyers

                    And that is without any of the fightback from obtaining doctors' certificates, medical certificates and specialists' certificates which add up, at any one time, to about 3,000 bucks a pop.

                      And obviously, as they have been stipulating from the other side, if you have a look at the military compensation arrangements, volume 2, DVA, February 2011, chapter 17.35.

                        and process—

                        win lose or draw.

                          external service organisation—

                            Considering that we have four acts that we cannot deal with and that the veterans' affairs minister does not even know about—because he has no idea of the legislation that is contained in them because he is too busy running around having cups of tea and scones out there promoting the Anzac centenary, where he will go and spend $750 million in the forward estimates and says, 'Stuff $2 million to the veterans; we'll just cut down a pathway.' Shame!

                                Please be advised I will not be supporting this Bill and will ensure the public, cross-benchers, Greens and Labor are made aware of the above points so that this Legislation can be seen in its true light – unfair.

                                Simply—it is bloody unfair and it is ripping the veterans off again—

                                Yours sincerely,

                                Jacqui Lambie.

                                It is clear, after reading independent feedback from veterans' affairs legal specialist lawyers Slater and Gordon that the alarm bells have rung. I will not go into mentioning the ex-service organisations who have been crying down my throat all weekend to stop this legislation from going through. They are absolutely disgusted.

                                Of course, had the minister gone out and done a reasonable consultation and bothered to speak to the ex-service service organisations, he would have received the same feedback that I have. It is not on, and it is not fair! Once again, they are ripping the heart and soul out of veterans.

                                Additional feedback in a media release from lawyer Brian Briggs, who recently gave a submission to the Senate committee examining the mental health of our diggers and veterans, says that the misleading and ill-conceived amendment in the bill before the Senate will strip vulnerable injured veterans and blow-out appeals against the Department of Veterans' Affairs refusals by up to two years. I believe he is actually being kind by the 'two years'. I would put it more at three years.

                                Slater and Gordon military compensation lawyer, Brian Briggs said that the Machiavellian amendment was hidden between two innocuous schedules in the Veterans Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015, and said, 'On behalf of injured veterans I am calling on all parties in the Senate to stop this inhumane removal of rights.'

                                He said that the schedule 2 amendment in the bill is deeply concerning as it strips the right to a fair process for appealing decisions by the Veterans' Affairs when they deny eligibility for support or compensation for injured veterans. At a time when the Senate is holding an inquiry into the mental health of veterans and Australian Defence Force personnel, the very thought that the Senate would consider passing this legislation, that will deny veterans health and cause them further trauma and suffering, is abhorrent.

                                Veterans already appearing before the inquiry have already described how delays, unfair decisions and the appeals process left them at rock bottom—it let them down and added to their trauma. It added to their trauma! Some have even described how friends and colleagues have taken their own lives as a result, and God knows how many have attempted to take their own lives. I can assure you that there are thousands of them. The bill will add up to two years to the DVA appeal process, and that means an extra two years that veterans in dire need will go without help. I wish them the best of luck surviving that—I really do.

                                Mr Briggs said that the schedule sought to force veterans through the Veterans' Review Board, which would strip them of their right to legal representation and of the right to recover costs when they are successful against the Department of Veterans' Affairs. He said that it means veterans will not be able to appeal the decision unless they are deemed to qualify for legal aid, or are able and have the funds to pay for it themselves, win, lose or draw.

                                This is about veterans not having the money for the medical and psychiatric treatment and reports that they need, as well as forcing them to battle against the Department of Veterans' Affairs and their bloody crappy lawyers without their own representation. Mr Briggs said that the net result is that the appeal system will become so hard and costly for injured veterans that they will be forced to give up their entitlement to be supported by DVA. I can assure the Senate that in the long run it is going to cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot more money. Trust me, I would know: I have been through the system. Without those dual pathways I would have been screwed. It would have cost me thousands and thousands of dollars and I would have still been down in the ditch. That is where I would be!

                                Mr Briggs said, 'The government has stated this will produce budget savings of around $2 million, but in fact the windfall for the government's coffers will be far greater because they will not be paying injured veterans the compensation that they are entitled to.' Mr Briggs said: 'This bill, if passed, will strip vulnerable, injured veterans of their rights and make it virtually impossible for them to access the support they are entitled to when they are refused by DVA because of the cost and added delay of challenging poor DVA decisions. These are literally matters of survival versus bankruptcy, life versus death, for the veteran affected. We trust that this bill will not be allowed to pass unless the stripping of the appeal rights is removed from the bill'.

                                The Liberal government has tried to sneak through the Senate the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015 by labelling it non-controversial when there is obviously plenty of controversy surrounding it. Of course, had the Minister for Veterans' Affairs done his homework, he would know that. Both respected military compensation lawyers essentially agree that this new government legislation, particularly in schedule 2, strips veterans of appeal rights and gives DVA more power to frustrate and deny claims without independent review of its decisions.

                                I am sick of the cover-ups and I am sick of the lies—and so are the bloody veterans—which are daily coming out of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the minister's mouth. We have had a gutful. I am sick, too, of hearing about the harm and the suicides of veterans. And I am sick of talking to bloody young veterans who end up living in tents on our streets because of the delays and underpayments of entitlements caused by a dysfunctional, incompetent minister and the Department of bloody Veterans' Affairs. The Prime Minister must act now and sack Senator Ronaldson—I have asked for it in the past and I will continue to ask for it—and put someone in the position who at least actually gives a shit about veterans more and does not worry about overseas junkets.

                                Photo of Richard ColbeckRichard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | | Hansard source

                                Mr Acting Deputy President, I understand—

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

                                Do you have a point of order, Senator Colbeck?

                                Photo of Richard ColbeckRichard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | | Hansard source

                                I do have a point of order. It is with regard to parliamentary language. I very much understand Senator Lambie's passion on this issue because, as she knows, I have had considerable interaction with her around it, but I would ask that you perhaps suggest some caution around the way she is using her language because on reflection she may very well regret some adjectives that she has used—

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

                                Thank you, Senator Colbeck. You are debating now. Please come to your point.

                                Photo of Richard ColbeckRichard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | | Hansard source

                                particularly in the context of the veterans themselves.

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

                                Thank you.

                                Photo of Richard ColbeckRichard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | | Hansard source

                                I am trying to assist Senator Lambie here, but some of the adjectives she has used, particularly adjacent to the veterans themselves, I think she may regret on reflection.

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

                                Thank you; I note that. Senator Lambie, I ask you if, in your concluding comments, you could bear in mind the language. The point you are making is certainly valid, but I just ask if you would be senatorial in your final comments. Thank you.

                                Photo of Jacqui LambieJacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

                                Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I oppose the legislation in schedule 2, and I call on all senators who want to look after our veterans and their families and cause them no more harm to do so themselves.

                                10:57 am

                                Photo of Zed SeseljaZed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

                                I rise today to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015. I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill today because it is another opportunity for this parliament to do the right thing by those who have served our country.

                                The unique nature of military service is such that it is important that we are always looking at ways that we can better provide support to those who have been prepared to give all for our nation. While this bill deals with a number of seemingly minor amendments, they each go some way to making sure our veterans get a good deal. This government has done a number of things to support our veterans already in this term. The 2015 budget continues to deliver on the government's acknowledgement and understanding of the unique nature of service and delivers more than $12 billion in services for veterans' affairs, including $6.5 billion for pensions and $5.5 billion for health care. We delivered our longstanding commitment to provide fair indexation for military superannuants. We restored $1 million per year in funding for advocacy and welfare work through the Building Excellence in Support and Training program. We have prioritised early intervention to ensure early treatment for conditions to minimise their long-term impact on veterans and their families. We have expanded services provided by the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service to more veterans and their families. We have also improved access to treatment for certain mental health conditions such as PTSD, anxiety and depression, including making it easier to seek treatment without the need to lodge a claim. We are now launching a dedicated website and Facebook page for the VVCS and expanding e-health services for veterans and service providers. This government is also working with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners to improve materials available to GPs to better identify service-related conditions.

                                We are broadening DVA's reach on social media through dedicated YouTube channels and Facebook pages, as well as releasing short videos focussing on the services provided by DVA to veterans and their families. We are reducing the time taken to process compensation claims and have reduced permanent impairment claim processing times by more than 40 days since coming to office—more work is needed to drive further improvements. We are writing to ADF personnel when they discharge to advise them of the services and support available to them from DVA. Finally, we are beginning a pilot veterans' employment rehabilitation program, which will encourage wounded, ill and injured personnel to find a pathway back to work as part of their rehabilitation. More broadly, we have shown our commitment to honouring those who have served through the $600,000 Veteran and Community Grants program and nearly $300,000 for the Saluting Their Service grants program. We have seen in this centenary of ANZAC many schools around the country paying tribute to our service men and women, and some of these schools were recognised through the Anzac Day Schools' Awards. I was pleased to visit a couple of Canberra schools, such as Good Shepherd in Amaroo and Merici College in Braddon—both won national awards in the Anzac Day Schools' Awards. All of these measures that have been listed reflect our commitment to ensuring we give due honour to those who have served us. This bill today, while plainly very different from these community initiatives, continues that commitment so that we can create a culture where we look after our veterans.

                                The bill will give effect to several Veterans' Affairs 2015 budget measures. The bill will create a single appeal path under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, it will enhance the operation of the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and it will expand the regulation making power under the Defence Act 1903 to include the provision and maintenance of a grave of a service dependant interred in the Terendak Military Cemetery.

                                The Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme is a voluntary vocational rehabilitation scheme for people eligible under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This scheme helps veterans who need rehabilitation because of injury—either physical or psychological—and need to find and keep work. It is about making sure that we give people who have served our country the opportunity to make a new career, to earn a living and to be a full part of society. This bill will increase the range of services available under the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme to include psychosocial and medical management services.

                                This bill also removes disincentives to participation in the scheme through a more favourable adjustment of pension payments for those who are in receipt of above general rate pensions such as the special rate or TPI. The more favourable adjustment of pension payments means that intermediate rate recipients who participate in the VVRS will not receive less disability pension than an intermediate rate recipient who does not participate in the VVRS. It means that special rate disability pension recipients who participate in the VVRS and who undertake less than 20 hours paid work per week will not receive less pension than an intermediate rate recipient who does not participate in the VVRS, and a more reasonable pension reduction regime will follow any prolonged absence from the workforce and will avoid disadvantage to participants who start the VVRS but experience lengthy absences from the workforce. An amount equivalent to the permissible earnings for special and intermediate rate recipients will be disregarded for VVRS participants when determining whether the person's reduced daily pension amount should be increased and will give them the same benefit from permissible earnings as is received by a non-participant of the VVRS. This measure is technical in nature, but it will make a difference to many veterans who want to still make a contribution through work but have found it tough because of their injuries. It is important that we help them get a foothold in the workplace and that is what this measure is designed to do.

                                The second measure in this bill relates to the appeal path for people who are unhappy with a decision made by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. We have a strong and independent commission that makes judgements on what a veteran is eligible for in relation to rehabilitation and compensation. But, it is only fair that veterans have an opportunity to appeal if they believe they have not had a fair go. This measure will allow veterans to first make an appeal to the Veterans' Review Board and then, as the next course of action, appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This clarifies arrangements that resulted in dual appeal paths being put in place by default—when the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission was established, there was no agreement on the best way forward for appeals. This has created confusion for people who make appeals and has created all manner of red tape. Veterans' organisations have strongly endorsed this measure, so that there is clarity in the system and our veterans who need help will get it.

                                Current legislative provisions enable the Director of the Office of Australian War Graves to repatriate deceased Australian military personnel from their place of interment and reinter those remains. There is no legislative provision to enable the repatriation of dependants. Consistent with the Prime Minister's announcement of 25 May 2015 that the ability of families of veterans and dependants of Australian Defence Force personnel buried at the Terendak Military Cemetery to elect to repatriate their loved ones remains, this amendment clarifies the power in the Defence Act 1903 to give the Director of OAWG the legal authority to repatriate all those buried at Terendak, subject to the wishes of the family. This is another small but very important amendment that gives families an opportunity for closure. As the Prime Minister said in his address to the parliament on 25 May this year, 50 years ago, the first contingent of the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment departed for South Vietnam. Eventually, almost 60,000 Australians, from the Army, Air Force and Navy. Five hundred and twenty-one of them are listed on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial. Of those 521, all but 25 were brought home to rest in Australia. Since that war, the Australian government has always made the effort to bring our fallen home to rest here on our shores. As the Prime Minister said:

                                We can never restore those who have died in the service of their country. But we can and we should offer solace and support to the families left behind.

                                Of the 25 we have not brought home, 24 lie in Terendak cemetery in Malaysia. They rest in a peaceful area, in graves which have been well tended with respect by the Malaysian government. I add my voice to those of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in thanking the government and people of Malaysia for caring for the site. The site is not easily accessible, and it has been tough for families to visit their loved ones.

                                This bill makes sure we treat those fallen soldiers just as we treat our soldiers of today, allowing families to bring their loved ones home to rest. It is up to the families of course, and their decision must be respected. But, for families who wish to take up this option, the government will bring home their loved one with full military honours, we will assist with re-burying them at a site of the family's choosing and we will bear all the costs along the way. This is the right thing to do for these men and women who served to their last breath. Importantly, I note, this offer extends to those who are interred at Terendak who are service dependants. This is, again, a small thing for the government to do. But here are 24 families who now have the chance, if they wish, to bring their loved one home. It is an important way that we can honour our fallen, and I particularly commend this measure to the Senate.

                                Once again, I emphasise how important it is for us to do all we can to support those who have served our country in the armed forces. We need to always be looking at the system to offer all the support we can to give our veterans every chance to flourish. This bill deals with three small technical amendments, but they are amendments that will make a real difference to the lives of our ex-service men and women.

                                The coalition have already delivered for our veterans. We have delivered fairer indexation for military superannuants, we have delivered more than $12 billion in services and we are continuing to ensure that the legacy of our service men and women is passed on to the next generation through our school and community projects. These are all important works and I am proud to be part of the government delivering on these programs.

                                This bill will broaden the operations of the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme, it simplifies and strengthens the appeals process under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, and it gives the families of those fallen soldiers still buried in Terendak the opportunity to bring their loved ones home. These are all important measures and I am glad to support them. I commend the bill to the Senate.

                                11:09 am

                                Photo of Nick XenophonNick 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.

                                11:17 am

                                Photo of Christopher BackChristopher 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.

                                11:37 am

                                Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

                                Australia owes a debt of gratitude and more to our veterans, those men and women of Australia who gave so much for their country. As a nation, we honour them. This legislation, like so many other pieces of government legislation, demonstrates that recognition and support that the nation and the nation through the parliament has for those who have served their country.

                                In every town and village across Australia, there are memorials and monuments to our serving men and women, demonstrating the nation's thanks. That is no better demonstrated and exemplified by the wonderful building and displays at the Australian War Memorial here in Canberra, which is the most visited public institution in this city. That memorial is a clear indication of how Australians from over the centuries have recognised and honoured our veterans. I might say, in talking about the Australian War Memorial, what a wonderful job the current director, Dr Brendan Nelson, is doing in that particular facility. It has always been good and it goes from strength to strength.

                                Before I get onto the terms of the bill as such, I will just also pause for a moment to pay my regards and give our thanks to all of those groups in Australia who support the veterans. Clearly, as Senator Back has just mentioned, that starts with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which over the decades has done a wonderful job in supporting veterans. The minister, Senator Ronaldson, has done an exemplary job since he has been in charge. Indeed, veterans' affairs ministers over many, many years have understood the importance of supporting and acknowledging the work that our veterans do. In addition to those in government and in this building, there are organisations right around Australia that do a wonderful job in support and advocacy for veterans. The principal of those organisations is clearly the Returned and Services League, which since almost the First World War has been providing support, advocacy, welfare and comradeship to veterans and providing a patriotism that the country can well follow.

                                My office is located in the northern city of Townsville. We often refer to it as a garrison city, because we are delighted to have the Lavarack Barracks in that city, which is the largest army barracks in Australia, as well as a significant Air Force base at Garbutt. Not far up the road in Cairns, we have Australia's second largest east coast naval base at HMAS Cairns. In those areas, I am well aware and well familiar with the work done to support our serving and our past service men and women by organisations like the RSL.

                                Because I live in the garrison city of Townsville, I interact a lot and I see the work that the Townsville RSL do to support veterans and to acknowledge the memory of those who have fallen in battle. I want to pay tribute to Bill Whitburn OAM, the current president of the RSL, and his predecessor, Mr Rod McLeod, who was there for many years and who did a wonderful job supporting veterans. I should also mention Tom Penrose, vice president; John Somers, vice president; Steve Cottam, treasurer; Squizzy Taylor; Michael Johnson OAM; David Twigg; Garry Player; Jon Daniels; and the members of the board of the Townsville RSL.

                                I mention the Townsville RSL particularly because I know it. They have this wonderful approach: for any battle that has ever been fought that Australians have played a significant part in, the Townsville RSL makes sure that that event is remembered and is recognised. They do that just so well. There are a lot of other groups, like the Vietnam Veterans' Association and Soldier On. There are many others; I should not start naming one or two, because you will always miss dozens of others. To all of those groups who so ably and committedly support our veterans, I want to acknowledge them and give my thanks to them.

                                Along the same lines, I will just acknowledge a group that in recent years has done so much to honour the memory of those who have died in the service of their country. I have mentioned the Avenue of Honour on the Atherton Tablelands near Yungaburra, which was the brainchild of Gordon and Susan Chuck, whose son was killed in Afghanistan, and others of that community—Annie Cork, Sharon Linwood, Kerry Kehoe, Peter Williams and Mike Williams—who all got together to plan and build the Avenue of Honour, which was opened by the then Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition in 2013. That again shows the wonderful support that Australians give to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of the freedoms that their country enjoys.

                                I want to deal now with the provisions of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015 and to start with the area of the bill dealing with the single appeal path. These amendments refine the current dual appeal path under the act to a single path review. Clients who do not like the decision of the first decision maker are able to seek a review of that decision by the Veterans' Review Board, with the next right of appeal being to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Currently there is a dual appeal path which seems to have been arrived at by default. It is an unwieldy system that creates complexities that can make the choice less than straightforward and add a level of concern to people who are applying to use that process.

                                The amendments which have been proposed by Minister Ronaldson have the strong endorsement of the veteran and ex-service community. I am delighted to see that they also have the strong support of the Labor Party. I note that Mr Feeney, former Senator Feeney, speaking less than a month ago on behalf of the Labor Party on 20 August 2015, said:

                                Labor supports this bill because it represents a modest improvement to entitlements of and services to veterans.

                                …   …   …

                                I commend this bill to the House.

                                That was the Labor spokesman speaking when this bill went through the House of Representatives less than a month ago. I repeat his final sentence:

                                I commend this bill to the House.

                                Mr Feeney—who, as I said, is the Labor spokesman—said on 6 September that he believed the amendment proposed by the government would actually speed up the appeals process. He said the review process began under the government of which he was a member back in 2007 and to date no-one had made any arguments against the changes—that is, since 2007 when, as Mr Feeney says, the former government started looking at this. Mr Feeney said:

                                It makes sense to have a single appeal pathway via the Veterans Review Board.

                                He said that there could be further reviews of the system down the track to look at the length of time appeals were taking, but—and I emphasise this—he said:

                                That is not a reason not to do something constructive now.

                                I agree with Mr Feeney on that. There is no argument that has been raised in this debate or in debate in the other chamber that gives any reason for not doing something constructive now.

                                Mr Warren Snowdon, who was a Minister for Veterans' Affairs in times gone by, said:

                                This amendment has the support of ex-service organisations and I commend the government for putting it in.

                                Again, I agree with Mr Snowdon on that. Mr Graham Perrett, also speaking in the House of Representatives on 20 August, said:

                                The changes to be made to the review process under this bill will streamline the process into a single pathway, and that is a good thing. This part of the amendment has the full support of the ex-service organisations.

                                Again, Mr Perrett is correct. So I look forward to the Labor Party supporting that element of the amendments. I look forward to them supporting all elements of the amendment. I could not believe, after such a ringing endorsement and support from senior members of the Labor Party involved in this area of policy, that the Labor Party could possibly countenance any opposition to that amendment. I look forward to the support of the Australian Labor Party for that particular amendment.

                                The other parts of the amendment proposed by the government include legislative provisions dealing with the director of the Office of Australian War Graves. Current legislative provisions allow the War Graves Commission to repatriate deceased Australian military personnel from their place of interment in order to reinter those remains. There is no legislative provision, however, to enable the repatriation by dependents. Consistent with the announcement by Mr Tony Abbott on 25 May this year, families of veterans and dependents of Australian Defence Force personnel buried at Terendak Military Cemetery can elect to repatriate their loved ones. This amendment provides for that and clarifies the power in the Defence Act to give the director of the Office of Australian War Graves the legal authority to repatriate all those buried at Terendak subject to the wishes of the family.

                                The other element of this bill which I think is very important, and one I hope that all senators will support, relates to the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme. The Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme is a voluntary vocational rehabilitation scheme for persons eligible under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The scheme is designed to assist eligible persons to find or continue in suitable employment. These changes include an increase in the range of rehabilitation scheme services to include physiological and medical management services. Importantly, they remove disincentives to participation in the scheme, through a more favourable adjustment to pension payments for those who are in receipt of above general rate pensions, such as the special rate or the TPI.

                                I will explain in a little bit more detail what those adjustments to the pension payments mean. They mean: firstly, that intermediate rate recipients who participate in the scheme will not receive less disability pension than an intermediate rate recipient who does not participate in the scheme; secondly, special rate disability pension recipients who participate in the scheme and who undertake less than 20 hours paid work per week will not receive less pension than an intermediate rate recipient who does not participate in the VVRS; thirdly, a more reasonable pension reduction regime will follow any prolonged absence from the workforce and will avoid disadvantage to participants who start the scheme but experience lengthy absences from the workforce; and fourthly, these provisions provide that an amount equivalent to the permissible earnings for special and intermediate rate recipients will be disregarded for Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme participants when determining whether the person's reduced daily pension amount should be increased and will give them the same benefit from permissible earnings as is received by non-participants in the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme.

                                These three broad areas of amendment are all worthy of support. As I say, the minister, as his normal way, has consulted widely with veterans themselves and with veterans support and advocacy organisations. He has brought these legislative proposals to the parliament so that we can, as a nation, continue to provide the most favourable and the most beneficial support possible for those who have served their country so well in the past. I think it perhaps fitting in this year that we celebrate the centenary of the landing at Anzac Cove that we continue the work done by many governments over many years to support veterans and their dependents. I congratulate Minister Ronaldson on the work that he has done on this particular bill, on the amendments that we are debating today, but also on the work he has done particularly in this very significant year of Australia's commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings. It has been a labour of love, I know, for the minister. But there is no denying that these things are never easy. Getting the money, getting the support of cabinet, and getting all the ends tied up and the pieces put together in the jigsaw puzzle is always a challenge. I congratulate Senator Ronaldson not only on bringing this bill forward today but on the work that he has done throughout the past 12 months on the Centenary of Anzac celebration. I commend the bill, in its entirety, to the Senate.

                                11:56 am

                                Photo of Linda ReynoldsLinda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

                                I too rise to speak in support of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015. This bill will give effect to a number of the veterans affairs 2015 budget measures to do three major things: firstly, to enhance the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; secondly, to create a single path for the review of original determinations made under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004; and, thirdly, to expand the war graves regulation, making power under the Defence Act 1903 to include graves of service dependents buried in Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia.

                                I think it is very important, when having a look at bills such as this, that we take a step back and have a look at the context of these proposed changes. This bill, like all bills relating to Defence Force personnel and also to our veterans, should be looked at through the lens of the Defence covenant, which is the framework that guides how a government supports its men and women—and their families—who serve and have served in the Australian Defence Force. That is the obligation that all Australians, through our government of the day, owe these men and women. This Defence covenant should not just be seen through a single lens focused on the Department of Defence itself and what the department does on our behalf; it should really be a multifocused aperture that defines and influences the machinery of government right across the broad spectrum of policy and decision making in the various tiers of federal, state and local governments and also, of course, out into the many community organisations that support our Defence personnel and our veterans.

                                In an Australian society that relies today on a voluntary Defence Force, I think that the best way of describing the defence covenant is summarised in the words of George Washington where he states:

                                The willingness of future generations to serve in our military will be directly dependent upon how we have treated those who have served in the past.

                                While those words were said a few hundred years ago, I think they are just as relevant today in Australia. It is not a surprise that this quote is a foundation of the Defence Force Welfare Association, which lobbies governments for improved support to Defence families and other organisations that continue to do wonderful work on behalf of our veterans community. I think the essence of George Washington's words go well beyond this. In order to provide the framework to support those who serve and have served and to encourage others to enlist in the future, it is absolutely critical that they have reassurance that they will be provided with the necessary means not only to prosecute the political directions of the elected government of the day but also to make sure they really understand that they will be looked after when they serve and after their service and that their families will also be looked after. It really is a two-way contract between those who have put their hand up to serve our nation and all Australians.

                                The conclusion I have come to is that the defence contract really is about how we look after our people, and it is one aspect, but a very important aspect, of the moral obligation we all owe our service men and women. It is a framework—a very broad framework—that covers areas of equipment, training, infrastructure support, industry involvement and also the many aspects of welfare support to our Defence personnel, our veterans and their families. The opportunity to define any government, including this government, is demonstrated through how we implement the defence covenant and our moral obligation to our service men and women. Together, as a government, as a Senate and as a parliament, we have a responsibility to support our men and women in uniform, current and past, in a clear and cogent way right across all levels of government. I really believe that that ultimately defines who we are as a people and who we are as elected representatives. When looking at legislation such as that which is before us today, this is the lens that we should always keep coming back to: where does it fit in to our defence covenant and to our moral obligation to our service men and women and to veterans? That is the lens through which I would now like to look at this current legislation.

                                Obviously when looking at current legislation, it is also important to look at what it builds on. In that way it is now very germane to look at what these three key provisions are building on for this government. What have we as a government done for veterans since our election two years ago? We have delivered on our longstanding commitments to deliver fair indexation for military superannuants. We have restored $1 million per annum in funding for advocacy and welfare work through the Building Excellence in Support and Training program. We have prioritised early intervention to ensure early treatment for conditions to minimise their long-term impacts on veterans and critically also on their families. We have expanded services provided by Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service to more veterans and their families. We have improved access to treatment for certain mental health conditions, such as PTSD, anxiety and depression, including making it easier to seek treatment without the need to lodge a claim. We have also launched a dedicated website and Facebook page and expanded e-health services for veterans and service providers to access information and to make it easier to get the support that veterans need. The government has also worked with the Australian College of General Practitioners to improve materials available to GPs to better identify service related conditions. We have also broadened DVA's reach on social media through a dedicated YouTube channel and Facebook pages, as well as releasing short videos focusing on the services provided by DVA to veterans and their families. Again, that is making services more accessible.

                                What else have the government done? We have also reduced the time taken to process compensation claims and we have reduced permanent impairment claim processing times by more than 40 days—again, practical assistance to help veterans and their families. But more work is still needed to drive further improvements. We have written to ADF personnel upon discharge to advise them of the services and support available from DVA. We have begun a pilot veterans employment rehabilitation program. This is important because it is encouraging our wounded, ill and injured personnel to find a pathway back to work as part of their rehabilitation. We have also released the Vietnam veterans family study, the peacekeepers study and the Rwandan health study to further identify any requirements needed by veterans of those conflicts. We have refreshed the prime ministerial advisory committee and given it a renewed and dedicated focus on the mental health issues facing veterans and their families. Again, as we all know in this chamber, it is a critically important issue and something we have to keep striving to do much better at. We have also in other ways cut red tape for veterans to make it easier to prove their identity when making a claim under DVA—again, practical implementation of a solution to a problem that really should have been dealt with a while ago. What else have we done? We have also been researching the effects of military service through a $5 million transition wellbeing study, in partnership with Defence.

                                We conducted a ceremony at Gallipoli on 25 April this year, attended by more than 10,000 people—including me and my family, who celebrated my own grandfather's service at Gallipoli—which marked the 100th anniversary of the Anzac landing, an absolutely defining moment in Australia's history. That again is something incredibly important not only for veterans of Gallipoli and particularly now their families but also as we move through the Centenary of Anzac, acknowledging the stories and the contribution of all of our veterans through the many conflicts that we have served in.

                                We have also been supporting more than $16 million of community based commemoration as part of the Centenary of Anzac through the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. All of us who have been out in the community know just how successful that has been in many wonderful ways for local communities to celebrate the service of community members in many conflicts. We are also commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan with special-purpose commemoratives grants, commemoratives events in Canberra and also a mission to Vietnam for up to eight veterans of the Vietnam War—again something that is long overdue but that this government is now delivering on. We are also constructing the Sir John Monash Centre at Villers-Bretonneux in France to tell the not well-known story of Australian service and sacrifice on the Western Front during the First World War, honouring our greatest citizen soldier, Sir John Monash. Again, that has very special resonance for me, because my grandfather served at Villers-Bretonneux.

                                And still it continues: the government is also funding a series of domestic commemorative events to honour our centenary of service during the Centenary of Anzac, including other anniversaries of key battles during the Second World War, the Korean War, the Malaya and Borneo conflicts, the Vietnam War and also the many peacekeeping missions that Australian men and women have served in over the years. But it does not end there. We are providing funding to the Australian War Memorial to complete official histories of the conflicts in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan.

                                One of the last but also one of the most significant things for veterans is one that is not necessarily seen outside of Canberra. The minister and the secretary of the department together really have been driving a renewed focus within the department on the need for early intervention for existing veterans and for the veterans that will be separating from the defence forces and need their services.

                                So that is the context in which we now find ourselves today. This is a government that has done so much already for veterans, and not only for veterans but also their immediate family and also their extended families, and multigenerations of families of our veterans.

                                So what are the three measures that this bill now builds on? Right up front, I would like to acknowledge that it is very pleasing to see that all three measures have had very strong support from the veterans and ex-service community.

                                The first measure in the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015 will benefit veterans through the enhancements to the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Notably, the scheme is voluntary, and it is designed to assist veterans to find or to continue in suitable employment. Again, it is a very laudable action that builds on some of the other measures that I have already talked about in this place. The scheme also provides incentives for participants in relation to the work thresholds for special or intermediate rate disability pension and the treatment of income from paid work on invalidity service pension. Again, it sounds a little bit bureaucratic, but, when you have a look at the detail of this program, it is overwhelmingly good news and another important step forward in the services that we provide for our men and women who have retired from the Defence Force. The enhancements to this scheme will expand the range of services to include medical management and psychological services. They will also result in certain special and intermediate rate disability pensioners having a smoother step down in disability pension whilst in the scheme, and they will encourage the veterans to remain or continue in the workforce—again, another very practical service—so that there is a more gradual, gentle and kind transition for those seeking to transition back into the workforce. So that is the first measure in this bill.

                                The second measure in the veterans' affairs legislation amendment bill will simplify and streamline the appeal process under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act by changing to a single appeal path. Currently, a claimant may seek a first-tier right of review from either the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission or the Veterans' Review Board but not from both. They then have a second-tier right of review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Following the changes in this bill, the first-tier right of review will be to the Veterans' Review Board itself. The second-tier right of review, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, is not changing.

                                The change to a single appeal path will avoid the complexities that claimants currently face relating to different time limits for the submission of appeals, different times taken to determine the review, and the choice they make impacting on entitlement to legal aid and the awarding of costs for appeals that eventually progress to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Again, that is quite a bureaucratic sounding change, but, again, it is one critically important to veterans who are going through this process so that it makes it easier and much more streamlined for them to go through the process, and I think that that is a universally good thing.

                                It was very interesting to read the comments of David Feeney, the opposition's spokesperson on this. In fact, I looked first at Graham Perrett's comments; he said that the change to be made to the review process under this bill would streamline the process into a single pathway and that that was a good thing. That is a comment from those opposite. This part of the amendment has the full support of the ex-service organisations. Also, Warren Snowdon noted that this amendment has the support of ex-service organisations, and he also commended the government for putting it into this bill.

                                The third part of this bill is an amendment of the Defence Act to enable the repatriation of the remains of eight service dependants buried in the Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia. Again, on any reading of this bill, this is a great thing. And it is the right thing for this country to do. It can only be done if requested by the families of the deceased. On 25 May this year, 50 years after the arrival of the first troops of the 1st Battalion RAR in South Vietnam, the Prime Minister offered to repatriate the remains of 25 Vietnam veterans from Terendak and also from the Kranji War Cemetery in Singapore. He made that offer to the families of the deceased. This offer was also extended to the families of three other servicemen and eight service dependants also buried in the Terendak Military Cemetery, as I said, in Malaysia.

                                The background to this is that, until 21 January 1966, the bodies of Australians who died in war were buried in war cemeteries close to where they had fallen in service of our country. But, from that date on, remains were, with the consent of the families, repatriated to Australia. The decision was not retrospective. So, of the 521 Australians who died in the Vietnam War, 25 remain buried overseas under that provision.

                                The families of those 25 Vietnam veterans now all have the opportunity to bring their loved ones home. That is a good thing, and that is the right thing for this country to do. But, because of the limited access for families of the deceased at the Terendak Military Cemetery, due to the cemetery being on a large, high-security military base in Malaysia, the offer of repatriation has also been extended to the families of all Australians interred at that cemetery. This includes the families of the eight service dependants who died while accompanying their father or their husband on military service in Malaysia. The amendments in this bill will enable the war graves regulation made under the Defence Act to authorise the repatriation of these service dependents, as I said, if required by their families.

                                I note that the minister has said that the government acknowledges the Malaysian government's offer to provide any assistance towards repatriation and that the Malaysian government has also been thanked for the great care, maintenance and respect shown to these graves of Australian personnel and their families.

                                It is for all of those reasons that the three provisions in this bill are to be commended and supported. They are not just three stand-alone provisions. While they are three very different provisions, nonetheless they are three very important provisions that build on the nearly 25 separate measures that this government has implemented to increase support to veterans of all conflicts that Australia has been involved in and, most importantly, not only to make the process easier and fairer for them but also to ease the burden on their families and generations of families of those who have served our country. It is for all of those reasons that I strongly commend this bill to the Senate.

                                12:16 pm

                                Photo of Michael RonaldsonMichael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

                                I move:

                                At the end of the motion, add:

                                (a) that Schedule 2 of the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 September 2015; and

                                (b) further consideration of the bill be an order of the day for the first sitting day after the Committee presents its report on Schedule 2.

                                I am completely at a loss as to how we have got to this position today. I do not understand how the Australian Labor Party, who have supported this matter for three years, have had their supposed political masters, by the looks of it, Slater and Gordon, come in at the eleventh hour in relation to this matter. Mr Feeney has supported this bill all the way through. Mr Feeney was still supporting this bill on 6 September. Yet, today, we have had the shadow minister putting forward an amendment. Hopefully this amendment of mine will avoid the Senate having to vote on his. Mr Feeney was going to take schedule 2 out of this bill altogether. It would have required the parliament to again legislate. The bill would have had to go off to committee and, depending on what the committee said, it would then have had to come back through by way of further legislation.

                                I am afraid that at base today is about those who are here to protect the rights of veterans and those who are here to protect the rights of lawyers. What the Australian Labor Party have done today is make quite clear that they want to protect lawyers before they protect veterans.

                                Senator Lambie, for all that she says she cares for veterans, has again chosen the path of supporting lawyers over veterans. I do not care what Senator Lambie says about me personally. It is water off a duck's back. After 22 years in politics, there is not much of my back that is not covered in scar tissue. But I will say to Senator Lambie that her disgusting behaviour in relation to her description of the staff of the Department of Veterans' Affairs cannot go without mention. They are a loyal and dedicated group of men and women. I am, quite frankly, proud to be their minister. Senator Lambie has not come to me with one constructive thought since she was first elected. Had she done so, it would have been given appropriate consideration. You can attack but, unless you are saying something proactive, you will be judged accordingly.

                                I will just go back to the words of Warren Snowdon, who was the appropriate minister, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, when this whole issue was looked at in what was eventually known as the Campbell review. This is what Warren Snowdon said when this bill was being debated in the other place. He said:

                                Schedule 2 of the bill will streamline the appeals process into a single pathway for reconsideration or review of an original determination under chapter 8 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This amendment has the support of ex-service organisations and I commend the government for putting it in. What it will do is change the appeal process to a single path, which will avoid the complexities that claimants currently face relating to different time limits for the submission of appeals, different times taken to determine the review, the choice they make impacting on the entitlements to legal aid and the awarding of costs for appeals that progress to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

                                Graham Perrett from the other place said:

                                Schedule 2 of the bill concerns itself with the appeals process available for reviews of 'original determinations'. The current review arrangements create two separate pathways. As Hugh Polson says:

                                The current review processes are not only confusing for veterans, but younger veterans often find themselves falling into the trap of a 'No Win-No Fee' predator.

                                … The changes to be made to the review process under this bill will streamline the process into a single pathway, and that is a good thing. This part of the amendment has the full support of the ex-service organisations.

                                Mr Feeney said again in the other place on 20 August:

                                … Labor will support this bill because it does represent a modest improvement to entitlements of, and services to, veterans. I commend this bill to the House.

                                Then again on 6 September, Mr Feeney is quoted as saying that

                                …he believed the amendment would actually speed up the appeals process.

                                He said the review process began under Labor back in 2007 and to date no one had made any strong arguments against the changes.

                                "It makes sense to have a single appeal pathway via the Veterans Review Board"…

                                He said there could be further reviews of the system down the track to look at the length of time appeals were taking.

                                "That is not a reason not to do something constructive now."

                                This matter has been discussed with the ex-service organisations for in excess of two and a half years. Mr Bayles from the department and others have been speaking to ex-service organisations over that period of time. They were briefed about this matter on budget night, when they were told it would be introduced sometime this year.

                                This has the full support of the ex-service organisations. And yet Slater and Gordon, three days out from this being debated, suddenly impose themselves on the Australian Labor Party and influence them in a manner that I have not seen exhibited in nearly 22 years in public life. At the eleventh hour we have Mr Feeney, who not only was talking about referring this off to a committee but actually wanted this chamber to vote against these particular measures so it might be reviewed and have to come back again. I suspect that the words of Paul Copeland from the APPVA are true. He said this in an email to another veteran yesterday: 'The choice to have a reconsideration of appeals pathways lengthening is normally rejected. Therefore the next step is the AAT. They are streamlining the appeal process as VRB then AAT—a fairer system. The lawyers are just spewing because they cannot represent us at the VRB. Some have been known to deliberately provide irrelevant evidence at the reconsideration phase so they can just go to the AAT and get the money.' His email goes on: 'The pathway's exactly the same as the VEA, which has been time tested. With a competent advocate there should be no need to see the Federal Court of Australia and no need to pay out for lawyers. The only thing that is being stripped here is the lawyers' opportunistic use of the reconsideration pathway.' That is from an ex-service organisation who have made it quite clear what should happen.

                                This schedule enables an appeal process that is threefold—not twofold, as is the current system. The introduction of the single appeal pathway for appeals under MRCA was an accepted recommendation—17.1 from the 2011 Review of Military Compensation Arrangements, known as the MRCA. The MRCA report described the single pathway through the VRB as a means of a more timely review that is less complex and less costly. As I said before, the MRCA single appeal pathway through the VRB has the unanimous support of the ex-service community.

                                The suggestion by Slater and Gordon, lawyers, that the VRB is not independent of the government and the department is absolutely and emphatically rejected. The VRB is headed by a panel of three members, one of whom at least has to be a former member of the ADF. New evidence which was not considered during the primary claims process can be presented at the VRB during the hearing. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is not represented at this hearing. It is a completely independent tribunal. The bill also provides for a discretionary internal review mechanism similar to section 31 of the Veterans Entitlement Act as a first step in the review process. This was also recommended by the RMCA. In July 2014 this parliament passed legislation which enhanced the powers of the VRB to improve its case management, including powers for the VRB to use alternative dispute resolution methods, such as case conferencing. This again was another recommendation from the MRCA. Indeed, from 1 January, the VRB has been conducting a 12-month trial of ADR case conferencing in its New South Wales registry with a view to possible further rollouts, if successful. Indicative outcomes are very positive that ADR can reduce the need for many appeals to go to a VRB hearing.

                                This is an extraordinary process that we are going through today. How a political party and how an independent senator can do what they have done today and pretend to represent the best interests of veterans is beyond me. What we have seen today is a disgraceful case of some in this Senate supporting lawyers before they support veterans. The veteran community knows full well that the VEA appeals path has worked well. It has stood the test of time, and that is why the Campbell review recommended that we go down the single appeal pathway—to bring the MRCA pathway in line with the VEA, to make it less complex, to make it less costly, to try to get an early resolution of these matters without the need to be in the AAT. But what do Senator Lambie and the Australian Labor Party do? They want to keep a costly process in place and they want to keep a complex process in place, all for the benefit of lawyers who want the ability, as Mr Copeland said, to get some action in this. Well, I am terribly sorry but I do not support lawyers being put before veterans.

                                As I said, this was an accepted recommendation under the RMCA outcome. It has had extensive consultation over two or three years. I believe this bill should have gone through today. It was going through today until last Thursday or Friday when Slater and Gordon became involved. It should have gone through as noncontroversial legislation. It should have been put in place now to assist the veteran community—not just this part of the bill, schedule 2, but every other part of it. We now have to wait another month before we can start the reinterment process for those men in Terendak. We now have to wait another month for the appeal process to go through. We now have to wait another month for the changes to the rehabilitation—

                                Photo of Jan McLucasJan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | | Hansard source

                                Do it our way.

                                Photo of Michael RonaldsonMichael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

                                I will take the interjection from the other side. How you can possibly seek to justify your behaviour today is beyond me. Have you actually read the amendment which would take schedule 2 out of this bill? Clearly not, otherwise you would not have interfered with such an ignorant comment. You have absolutely buckled to Slater and Gordon. You were prepared to take schedule 2 out of this legislation and for that you stand utterly condemned. The veteran community will be listening to this, they will see the transcripts and they will know what you have done today. They will know what Senator Lambie has said and done today. If you do not believe me, speak to the people who represent the veterans in this nation and speak to the ex-service community. You do not seriously think we would be going down this single-appeal pathway without the complete and utter and passionate support of the ex-service organisations, do you? I can assure you, parliamentary secretary, that we would not have done so.

                                Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

                                Your comments should be addressed through the chair, Senator Ronaldson.

                                Photo of Michael RonaldsonMichael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

                                Through you, Acting Deputy President, do you think that former Minister Snowdon would have been such an enthusiastic supporter of this schedule if he had not consulted with the ex-service organisation? Of course not, and it beggars belief to think anything else. But we have heard Mr Perrett in the other place and we have heard Mr Snowdon in the other place, and the shadow minister himself—who has constantly supported every aspect of this bill—gets a phone call from Slater and Gordon three days out and all of a sudden the world has changed, it is a different world. I challenge Senator Feeney and I challenge Senator Lambie to vote for this matter in its entirety when it comes back—vote to take a complex and costly system out, to support those younger veterans that Mr Perrett in the other place referred to, and to make this a non-adversarial process as the VEA has always been. If you want to choose adversarial over non-adversarial, that is entirely your choice. That is not what the veterans' community want; they want the VEA single pathway process because it has worked and they want it because it is good for veterans—it is less costly, less complex and less imposing on them. We have gone down this path because we believe the ex-service community is right. That you have gone down this path through the Australian Labor Party is a reflection on you.

                                The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the government's amendment on sheet 7755, referring schedule 2 to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee and deferring further consideration of the bill until after the committee presents its report, be agreed to.

                                Question agreed to.

                                Original question, as amended, agreed to.

                                Bill read a second time.