Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Presented as I am with the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 and cognate bills, I would like to take the opportunity to talk in particular about aspects of the veterans’ affairs portfolio—some of the issues that are currently at play in that area—and to go through some of the concerns that I have about where the government is up to with the veterans portfolio. I will start off with a few comments about mental health issues. Mental health issues are a central part of the health concerns facing many veterans and certainly a major and growing area for the department in terms of dealing with the needs of veterans. We are aware also of course that mental health has more generally in more recent times been an area that the government has rightly moved to take some notice of and put some funding into. It has been one of those areas of health policy in general terms that has been neglected for quite some time. We saw the government with respect to the broader community put forward a $1.9 billion package for mental health. It is clear that that is not enough to meet the actual need that is there but you have to welcome it; it is a significant amount of money.

But in the context of the veterans’ affairs portfolio only some $20 million was put forward in the budget in new expenditure for dealing with mental health issues. I welcome that $20 million but again I do not think that we can stand here today and say that it is enough to deal with the many issues facing the veterans community. You have already heard in earlier comments I made today about the children of Vietnam veterans health study and the range of other health studies that have occurred, some relating to issues of mental health, and these are starting to get to the detail of the sorts of problems that veterans are dealing with. I do not think that $20 million is going to go anywhere near far enough in dealing with the sorts of issues that are being brought to light.

The minister says that you have got to go beyond that to the fact that DVA spends approximately $130 million each year on mental health already, including funding for hospitals, counselling and mental health and drug related issues. Once again, when we look at the fact that there is obviously an outstanding need in the community in general, to have a situation where you have got a $1.9 billion package for the general community but only $20 million for the veterans community I think is just astounding. The minister also makes a point that of course veterans will be able to access aspects of the $1.9 billion package in the general community. That of course is true, but there is no doubt that there are outstanding needs there.

The other problem we have got with that $20 million is finding out exactly what it is proposed to be used for. The government has not been forthcoming as yet with much detail about where that money will be going. At estimates Ken Douglas, DVA General Manager of Service Delivery, stated:

There is quite a long list of largely small initiatives that go to a number of different categories.

Mr Douglas went on:

The first of them would be a series of communication type initiatives, basically working with bodies like the Divisions of General Practice to develop educative programs and self-help tools that would improve mental health literacy amongst general practitioners.

Other major initiatives were listed by Ken Douglas in estimates but they seem only to be top-up funds or they provide minor changes to already existing programs. He said they would be:

... developing self-help tools along the lines of The Right Mix website ... to extend some of the lifestyle management programs that have been made available to the Vietnam veterans cohort to the post Vietnam War cohort—the peacemaker, peacekeeper type cohort.

Again, when asked directly whether he could provide detailed information on what programs the $20 million would be spent on, Mr Douglas said:

I will take it on notice and see what we can give to you that is particularly helpful, without of course constraining us in terms of what negotiations we might need to have with providers ...

Frankly, I do not think that is good enough. We need to be in a situation where we have got a clearer picture of where that money is going. Only when we know what the government is going to do with these funds can we properly scrutinise how those funds are used and get a proper idea of the effectiveness or otherwise of that expenditure. It is okay for the minister to pop along to veterans groups and ex-service organisations and say, ‘Isn’t this great?’ but we need the detail and we need to have a clearer understanding in the community.

Another issue that I would like to touch on is the issue of Long Tan bursaries. The government made an announcement that they would spend some $4.5 million over four years to commemorate the contribution of Vietnam veterans and the 40^th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. On from that there was the announcement that this includes an expansion of the Long Tan bursaries scheme by increasing the number of bursaries from 30 to 50 and increasing their value from $6,000 to $9,000.

We welcome these initiatives. They are a good, positive step forward. There is no doubt that Long Tan bursaries are very worth while, given the opportunity they provide to children of Vietnam veterans in getting support to ensure further study. However, it is a pale imitation of what Labor committed to in its 2004 election campaign. I will read from our policy at that time. It states:

1. Fund additional tertiary education bursaries

The fund will provide an additional 120 bursaries for the children of all veterans who meet selection criteria of need and merit.

These bursaries will add to the existing 30 Long Tan bursaries. They will be flexibly managed by the Australian Veterans’ Children Assistance Trust to fund average 3 year courses. This Trust will continue to manage existing private  bursaries.

Private benefactors and service clubs will be encouraged to contribute to this Trust. As part of the package, a Federal Labor Government will provide $1 million to the Trust to be invested for the provision of future bursaries.

Many veterans’ children since WWII have benefited from similar programs and Labor believes that tradition should be continued.

Again, Labor welcome this initiative by the government. We believe that it is overdue. It builds on an existing program which is very effective. However, it does not go far enough—more should be done. At the last election, we committed to provide more funding in that area. I urge the government in future to look at determining how far we go with this. The fact is that bursaries have been shown to work. That is one of the reasons why the government has extended the numbers—and, as I said, I welcome that. But, frankly, I do not think it takes into account the need that is there with respect to children of veterans in those sorts of circumstances, and it ought to be addressed by the government.

Another couple of issues that I would like to touch on tonight relate to Anzac Cove and the funding for the Le Hamel Memorial. Over the last 12 months, there has been a lot of debate about the state of the roadworks and the various other problems at Anzac Cove. It has been illuminating to watch the government duck for cover on this. At first they denied there was a problem and then they tried to play catch-up football to address the problem in the lead-up to Anzac Day.

I was in Turkey, at Gallipoli, for Anzac Day. I am on record and happy to say again that I thought it was a particularly well-run occasion; it was very professionally done. I think all those who were involved from the department and the government should be congratulated on the end result. I would also like to put on record my thanks to the Turkish authorities for the work they did to ensure that it was a success. Again, let us have no doubt about it: the road is still a mess. Temporary repairs were made but they were incredibly temporary. There is absolutely no doubt that more work needs to be done. The government recognises that, but we are still having great difficulty in establishing when that work will be done and how it will be done.

I appreciate that that requires negotiation with the Turkish government and that they have a central role in all of this. I understand that it is not always easy to work through those issues, but I am genuinely concerned about where they are up to and where we go in future in dealing with them. In estimates a number of comments were made about the road by the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Mark Sullivan, who said:

That involved some significant repairs to subsidence around culverts, to major potholes and to blisters in the road surface itself. It involved the monitoring of subterranean water drainage through some of the cuttings and the monitoring of some potential subsidence along Anzac Cove and Brighton Beach.

He continued:

It did suffer some distress as a result of Anzac Day. They were temporary repairs and the road has deteriorated since. I think it would be fair to say that the current state of the road is fair to poor.

We need to see more movement occurring with this matter. As has been made clear from earlier comments by the Prime Minister, there was no doubt that the expectation was that action would have been taken by now to deal with these issues and that we would have a final settlement that, in the long term, would ensure that things were taken care of. When questioned at estimates about where matters such as the archaeological and historical surveys were up to, the secretary to the department, Mark Sullivan, stated:

The Turkish government have not yet provided us further criteria or information as to how this review is going to be conducted.

Mr Sullivan also said:

We have notified them but, as I say, we have not yet seen a response from the Turkish authorities as to what they have determined to be the scope and nature of the study. That work has got to come from the Turkish authorities.

Senator Hurley then asked:

Is the corollary of that that we are not quite sure when the survey will begin?

Mr Sullivan—No. We cannot be certain of that ...

Frankly, I urge the department and the government do everything they can to try to get some movement on this issue and to try to get to a situation where we no longer have to deal with this issue at every estimates hearing or worry in the lead-up to Anzac Day that the matter will in fact be concluded successfully. As I said, this year’s Anzac Day I think was a great success and a credit to all of those involved, but there is absolutely no doubt that that road still needs to be repaired properly and for the long term to ensure that we do not have the sorts of issues coming up that have been dominating headlines about Gallipoli over the last 12 to 18 months.

I would like to go on to talk briefly about another decision out of the budget, which relates to the issue of funding for the Le Hamel memorial. This is a memorial that I guess many Australians have not been to, but I would certainly urge them to go and have a look if they could. I will read from an extract from a website with respect to it. It says:

This memorial site is of extreme significance as it was the final objective for the Australian attack on the 4th July, 1918. Each Australian division erected a memorial at sites all over France and Belgium which recognised their finest achievements. It was on the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Hamel that the French Government donated this particular piece of French soil as the construction of an Australian Corps Memorial Park. This memorial consists of a large sandblasted image on Australian granite of the Rising Sun badge, which was worn proudly by the Australian soldiers throughout the war.

The $1.3 million memorial at Le Hamel, dedicated on July 4, 1998 is formed by three curved walls.

The central one is 12 metres long and 5.2 metres high and carries the "rising sun" badge of the First AIF.

The one on the left bears the image of the infantry platoon and the one on the right, images of the other units taking part in the battle the tanks, the Air Flying Corps and the artillery.

The image of the platoon is a copy of a photograph taken on August 8, 1918 which shows B Company of the 29th Battalion a Victorian unit being addressed by their platoon commander.

It was taken as all five divisions of the Australian Corps lined up to take part in the major Allied attack on the German lines the first time the five Australian divisions had fought together as the Australian Corps. It was the largest and most important battle undertaken by the Corps. The starting line was at Hamel captured by the Australians on July 4.

The memorial is the first memorial on the Western Front dedicated to the Australian Corps. The park surrounding it includes a 500 metre walking trail with 18 information panels along its length on aspects of the battle.

The colour patches of every one of the 148 units of the Australian Corps are also incorporated in the memorial.

In the ground in front of the walls is a circle of black granite in which are carved the words of Australian war historian, Charles Bean “What these men did, nothing can alter now. It rises as it will always rise above the mist of ages, a monument to great-hearted men, and for their nation a possession for ever.”

All of that is very true, except that we have had a problem, which is that it was only some eight years ago—1998—that this memorial was actually constructed. The fact is that it is falling apart. The government has quite rightly provided some $7.9 million over three years for redesign, demolition and reconstruction of the memorial. But the fact of the matter still is that this memorial was constructed for $1.3 million some eight years ago and now, eight years later, it is costing $7.9 million to reconstruct. There is the issue of the cost, but more importantly in the circumstances—because I understand that costs have increased in respect of construction of a matter such as this—the issue is: why are we in a situation some eight years later of having to rebuild this memorial? At Senate estimates, Mark Sullivan said:

Tiles falling off were fundamental to the problem. It is a complex matter, which we are happy to go into. The current memorial has three major parts; the thing they have in common is that they are a mural based on individual tiles. The original plan for those tiles, which came from Australia, was that they would be individually drilled and pinned in place to the memorial. The tiles were delivered to France without the individual holes drilled in them to allow pinning and the advice received was that an alternative method of construction and placement of the tiles would work, that is, basically, the placement of the tiles on mortar. I believe there has been evidence for some time that that method of construction did not work.

The fact of the matter is that it did not work. It did not work at all. The circumstances are that we now have a significant expenditure of almost $8 million designed to try to remedy this. Really, who is to blame here? Again at estimates, Mark Sullivan said:

It does not appear to have been a decision taken by someone unilaterally and who then thought they would see how it happened; it seems to be a decision that was taken by consensus, but it failed. I think if we said that the purpose here is to find someone to litigate against, we might have trouble identifying who they were and we would be involved in a very lengthy process of litigation during which time, of course, the memorial would have to stand as is, as evidence.

I understand the position of the department and the secretary that in fact this is a difficult issue to pursue. But I have to ask the question: how did we get into this situation? Why was there not better scrutiny occurring to ensure that this did not take place?

There must be records on the question of who the consensus was with in respect of making the changes here. Frankly, there should have been more done by the government and by the department at the time to ensure that this decision was not taken. It has produced a major expenditure out of the budget of some nearly $8 million and it frankly is not something that we can do anything other than condemn the need for. Yes, it has to happen because of the state of the memorial, but the fact that it got to this stage is something that the government should be looking at very seriously. I note that we have been asked to keep our contributions to a minimum to try to facilitate the movement of this bill through the House. On that basis I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context