Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

In dealing with the appropriation bills, I want to compliment the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for some decisions he has taken since coming into the portfolio and for his preparedness to review previous attitudes and venture where some previous government ministers dared not go. I appreciate his recognition of and support for the great work done by Jim Bourke and his team on Operation Aussies Home. I also appreciate his support for the veterans of Rwanda. I also think the setting aside of funds in the budget, as per the request I put to the minister earlier this year in the parliament, to help Vietnam veterans commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan is a worthy initiative. It remains to be seen, however, how these funds will be spent.

I also want to express my appreciation to the ALP spokesman on veterans affairs, Alan Griffin. Alan has been like a breath of fresh air in the portfolio area and he has picked up the issues quickly. Indeed, he led on the Rwanda issue and placed the government in a position where it had no option but to follow and to recognise service in Rwanda. So I say: well done to the ALP spokesperson on veterans affairs—well done, Alan. I encourage Alan in his duties as shadow minister and place on the record my support for the work he is doing. I also recognise that we have a long way to go and a lot of work to do if we are going to rebuild the support and trust of the veteran community. The ALP recognise this and we are keen to get on with the job. The government also have a long way to go, but I doubt that they recognise this. They still seem to me to take the veteran community for granted.

I want to refer to some budget comments which have come from within the veteran community. The first of these comes from the Vietnam Veterans Federation under the heading ‘Here is the great disappointment, the great failure of the 2006 federal budget’. In their dot points, they say:

None of the long standing, substantial injustices suffered by the war veteran community was addressed.

No acknowledgment that the TPI pension has lost over $80 in value since 1997 when the government omitted to reindex the TPI in the same way it reindexed the Age, Service and war widows. No move either to reindex the whole of the TPI pension to stop it continuing to lose value compared with community incomes.

No move to solve the cyclical hiatus of General Practitioners and Medical Specialists refusing to accept the Gold Card.

No mention of funds to conduct the health study on the sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans despite the Minister having received a scientific report confirming its feasibility.

No move, either, to remove the age limit of 36 for the sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans seeking counselling at the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service.

No move to change the immoral practice of forcing war veterans to financially contribute to the treatment of their war caused disabilities through the continually increasing pharmaceutical co-payments.

No move, either, to stem the declining value, compared with community incomes, of veterans’ military superannuation (DFRDB etc). So many veterans retiring as they did from the Services at young ages, watch their standard of living slide further and further behind that of the general community.

In summary, the 2006 Federal Budget has badly failed war veterans and their families.

It is signed by Tim McCombe. Tim is the President of the Vietnam Veterans Federation and is a Vietnam veteran. The other issue I want to refer to in the same vein is a media release put out immediately post the 2006 Costello budget. It is under the heading ‘The Howard government budget 2006 has forgotten TPI veterans’ and it says:

While the Howard Government continues to produce record budget surpluses their mean spirited attitude towards veteran’s remains. Through an unfair indexation system not experienced by other government pensions, TPI veterans have lost $80 per fortnight in the last 6 years. Unlike other pensioners, TPI’s will see their compensation for loss of income due to their service related disabilities continue to be eroded and result in a lowering of the standard of living for them and their families.

Veteran’s advocates across Australia are complaining of a tightening up of the granting of disability pensions by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. On the Government’s own figures there has been a reduction of 8% in the number of disability pension increases across Australia in the last four years. This at a time when veterans are getting older and sicker. The day to day experience of many veterans reflects a Government, a Department and a Repatriation system that is becoming increasingly tighter and failing to meet the needs of veterans and their families. At the same time we have a government continuously prepared to put servicemen and women in harms way but turn its back on them when they need help as a result of their service.

The dissatisfaction of the ex-service community with the Howard Government has been apparent for some years. In 2001 and 2003 there were peaceful demonstrations by veterans outside parliament house—something unheard of in the past. There has been hundreds of letters and submissions sent to government only to be ignored. An organization has been formed of the Partners of veterans because they have not been listened to. The Clarke Review of veteran’s entitlements attracted over 3000 submissions and again they were ignored. ... On ANZAC Day we had groups of frustrated veterans marching wearing orange ribbons as a sign of their frustration with the Howard Government. Even though the TPI Federation has 15,000 members consisting of the country’s most disabled veterans, the office of the PM refuses to speak to me.

The TPI Federation is now continuously under pressure from sick veterans to organize another major protest rally against the government. Prime Minister John Howard should be ashamed of his Government’s handling of veterans issues. Veterans and their families are simply not important to the Government.

Those two critiques of the budget do give some reflection of the frustration and anger that is building in the veteran community, particularly in the ranks of the TPI veterans, many of whom are indeed needy and many of whom are simply watching their standard of living shrink in comparison with that of the rest of the community.

I have a very high regard for the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the TPI Federation for the work that they do. I do not agree with all that they pursue or all of their policy positions. However, I recognise that they are fearless in their pursuit of veterans’ issues and that they put the welfare of their members first. They are not afraid to take on ministers—or, indeed, shadow ministers, for that matter—when they reckon that that minister is wrong. However, it is disappointing that the Prime Minister refuses to meet with the national president of the TPI association. There are many in the veteran community who feel that if the national president had been a brigadier, colonel or some other high rank he would have had no problem getting in to see the Prime Minister. But of course the national president of the TPI association was a warrant officer. I would hope that that suggestion is not true but, as I said, it is a disappointment that the national president of the TPI association cannot get a meeting with our Prime Minister.

The other issue that I want to turn to relates to the recent announcement of the ADF medal—an issue which has been going on ever since the announcement of the national service medal some years ago. I want to quote a letter that I have received from a squadron leader—a letter which he has also written to the minister. I do not intend to quote all of it, but I do intend to quote some of it, because it really reflects the high volume of correspondence that is coming across my desk and the desks of other members of parliament and it reflects some of the issues that are generating some bitterness within the current and former serving veteran community. This former squadron leader says:

As an ex veteran who has served in both the Regular Army and the RAAF I am very concerned about the changes recently made to the criteria for the issue of the Australian Defence Medal (ADM) that now allows National Servicemen to also be eligible for this medal without having to have completed a period of Voluntary Service that was applicable at the time.

…            …            …

The ADM was initially proposed in 2004 and was to be for Volunteers only. The original medal sample had printed on it ‘For Volunteer Service’ and the criteria was for Regular Volunteers and service was to be no less than six years.

The criteria for the ADM was changed in 2006 following complaints raised in regards to periods of enlistment that Volunteers could initially sign on for and to cater for personnel discharged on medical grounds, died whilst serving or were discharged due to Government policies at the time (e.g. servicewomen who married whilst still serving in the armed forces).

The things mentioned in the last paragraph were part of the ALP policy right from the word go. We recognise those things because of the very involved consultation that we had with the veteran community. I was very pleased when the government, I think under Minister Brough, adopted those ALP policy positions and put them into their amended policy. However, the policy was amended even further, but I will come to that shortly.

This squadron leader says in his letter to the current minister:

I would appreciate if you can answer the following questions:

a.

The Government claims it consulted with the ex-service community but nowhere can anyone be found who was involved in this consultation. It is the firm belief of the Volunteers that the National Service Association were the only ones ‘widely’ consulted and somehow convinced the Government that the ADM should be awarded to them as well. Why?

I think that is a fair question.

b.

How can the Government vary the qualifying criteria for a medal without consultation with the Defence and ex-service community?

I think that is a fair question.

c.

Why have National Servicemen of all conscription periods even been considered for a volunteer’s medal (unless they had completed an additional period of voluntary service)?

d.

Why isn’t the criteria amended to read its true worth?

Finally:

e.

Why is the Government destroying our Honours and Awards System?

He goes on to say:

I look forward to your comments and an early reply.

I hope that the minister will respond to that letter. I and the ALP welcome any recognition for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force. We are disappointed that, while the government accepted much of our policy in relation to the issues I have already mentioned, they did not adopt our whole policy. Since the most recent criteria for the ADM were announced and since the rush to get medals into the community around Anzac Day, there has been much complaint. Indeed, there has been bitter complaint about the policy and the change that the government made to its amended criteria without any apparent consultation with the broader veteran community.

I do not want to see the veteran community tear itself apart over these criteria. During the Vietnam era, national servicemen and regulars worked together, supported each other and were as one. I say this to the veteran community: we must stay as one. I would encourage anyone eligible for the medal to apply for it and to wear it with pride. I certainly understand the angst particularly surrounding the awarding of the medal to three- and six-month national servicemen of the fifties and sixties, when today the serving infantry have to complete four years to be eligible for that same medal. I might say that that is four years of fairly heavy operational service, if the current tempo continues. You can see the differences in criteria in terms of length of service, and you can understand why there is some bitterness over this decision. But, as I said, the veteran community of national servicemen and regulars served as one; we should stay as one.

The government have made their decision, and it appears to me that we are now stuck with it. I do not see how it could be changed retrospectively perhaps a couple of years down the track. What is still required, however, is distinct recognition of volunteer service within the Australian defence forces. I can assure the veteran community that the ALP will be consulting with them in the near future to ensure that their voice is heard on the issue. It may well be that what we need to do is look at the idea of a clasp which recognises volunteer service and which could be worn on the most recent ADF medal. National servicemen certainly have their commemoration medal. They are recognised. It was a good move. It was a move supported by the opposition of the day. But there is without doubt a need to now end the division within the veteran community and ensure that, quite distinctively, volunteer service is recognised.

I say this in conclusion. Setting aside the issue of the criteria, there are still big problems being experienced by people putting in for the medal. I am in receipt of a letter from the Injured Service Persons Association, which points out a number of anomalies within the process of these medals being applied for and being either awarded or rejected. They have set out a number of examples where the same sorts of people have applied for the medal and one has been rejected and another has been accepted. This sort of stuff just cannot continue. When it came to medals, we used to be able to laugh at the Yanks. But we in Australia can no longer laugh at the Americans, because we have our own problems with our medals and they are problems that need to be sorted out and rectified. The sooner that is done, the better off and more harmonious the veteran community will be.

See this speech in context