Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Secker, may I add my congratulations on your elevation to a presiding role. I hope you enjoy having the opportunity to keep us all in line, consistent with the standing orders. It is a hearty moment when both sides of the House concur.

There seems to be concurrence on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006, although I will touch on some of the points of deviation that seem to have emerged in some of the commentary. I would like to acknowledge my friends and colleagues the members for Fisher and Moreton, and also the member for Bruce and the member for Cowan, for their contributions. The bill that we are discussing today is part of what I call the ‘everlasting march’. There is not the opportunity to rest on our laurels, as a nation or as a government, when it comes to the support we provide those who have served our nation. There is a constant challenge of evolution, of improvement and enhancement because the service of our men and women in the Australian defence forces, the challenges and the medical conditions and the support that our veterans deserve, constantly evolves. It is constantly changing and we need to change, adapt and evolve with it so that we maintain a well-earned and well-established international reputation as having the world’s best repatriation system.

The bill that is before the House is probably not the most significant legislative reform that the parliament will debate, but it is important in carrying forward that ongoing commitment to constantly improve, refine and finetune our systems as they support the serving men and women of the Australian defence forces and our veteran community.

This government and its predecessors over many years have developed a comprehensive repatriation system which recognises the very special standing and the special duty we have to care for, support and respond to the needs of our veteran community. The bill is yet another example of this government’s recognition of the need for improvements in the delivery of repatriation services to our veterans, their dependants and those men and women who continue to serve in Australia’s defence forces and who benefit from the support we provide through the legislative changes.

Our repatriation system provides a range of benefits to compensate veterans, serving members and their dependants for injury, disability or death resulting from that service. It is important to reflect on that transformation. One of the earlier speakers—I think it might have been one of the opposition speakers—rightly identified that the aggregate number of people in our veteran community is declining. Sadly, that is as a result of time taking its toll on primarily World War II veterans. Thank goodness we have not seen a mass mobilisation of the scale that was required to defend our nation and support our allies in World War II. That was a rather significant population hump in the veteran community and many are moving on to a more peaceful place because of their age.

Notwithstanding that, when the Howard government was elected, our Veterans’ Affairs budget was just a tad over $6 billion. Over time, and notwithstanding the declining number in our veteran community, today it is $10.8 billion. It is clearly evident, from that simple statistic alone, that our efforts to support the veteran community continue to evolve and that, far from taking the foot off the accelerator, we have actually expanded and increased the range of support to recognise the changing needs of an albeit declining number in the veteran community.

This bill is part of that ongoing journey. The changes made by this bill will improve the efficiency and the delivery of those benefits and other services that are provided to veterans, serving members and their dependants under both the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill enables the Repatriation Medical Authority to review one or a number of factors in a statement of principles rather than the entire contents of the statement of principles. Statements of principles are formulated by medical and scientific experts for use in the assessment of whether or not a claimed injury, disease or death is war or service related. That is important because, in addition to the benefits that veterans enjoy as citizens of Australia, there is another layer and a comprehensive range of support available because of their unique contribution to Australia, and that is delivered through the repatriation service.

To maintain the understanding within the community that that is not only appropriate but entirely justified and warranted, we need to ensure that we recognise that those additional benefits are available as a result of that link to the need for those benefits and to a person’s war or service experience. That is a key tenet that is captured in the statements of principles. Sadly, we all acquire illnesses, diseases and injury as a broader population. Which of those conditions, though, are likely to be as a consequence of our military service and our war service? That is what is captured in the statements of principles in order to give legitimacy and authority to that additional range of benefits that I have touched on.

Regular reviews are carried out of those statements of principles, based on the latest medical and scientific evidence. The amendments captured in this bill will enhance the review process, making it quicker and more properly focused—that is, if there is a new scientific or medical insight that is relevant to our statements of principles, we can target and embrace that new insight, adjust one or two factors which are relevant and make our statements of principles as contemporary and as well informed as possible without the need to entirely examine the complete statements of principles.

The bill also enhances the operations of rules on existing income streams and clarifies the policies relating to those income streams. The rule changes follow on from changes in the family law and allow the means test to be applied to certain non-superannuation annuities that are split following a divorce property settlement. Another minor change to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act will enable benefits and allowances, the rates or amounts of which are fixed by or calculated under the regulations or a legislative instrument, to be funded from the consolidated revenue fund.

The bill also corrects some minor errors and anomalies in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme. This scheme provides treatment, rehabilitation and compensation for all permanent and reserve members of the defence forces who suffer an injury or disease as a result of service after 30 June 2004. That is a new scheme that carries forward the best of the old schemes—and I will touch on that shortly. Benefits provided by the scheme match and, in many cases, enhance those provided under the previous arrangement—that being CERCA and the veterans’ entitlements system.

The anomalies being rectified by the bill include the removal of the age limit of 65 for the special rate disability pension, which is payable for life. The government’s intention was absolutely clear and always has been and it was unfortunate that the member for Bruce sought to cast some aspersion on what our motive was. The government’s position has always been clear: that those benefits should be payable for life, and the changes in this bill ensure the continued payment of the pension beyond age 65, which is consistent with payments of the special rate or TPI pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. That was always the government’s intention. It stated so. We are ensuring that there is no doubt about that in the legislation.

The bill also makes changes to correct the liability provisions by excluding the acceptance of any self-inflicted diseases. This brings the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in line with the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Thankfully, we do not have many examples—in fact none—of self-inflicted diseases resulting in claims for compensation. But that does ensure that that provision is available where, heaven forbid, such a behaviour occurs.

The bill also ensures that service personnel incapacitated by injury or disease during training are remunerated at levels commensurate with what they would have earned if they had completed their initial training. That is designed so that, if someone in training is injured and therefore not able to achieve the income they would have achieved had they completed their training, we will base our payments on their having completed their training, which they certainly would have done had they not been injured. That is the logic and policy imperative that sits behind that provision.

The bill also provides for the payment of travelling expenses for claimants attending a hearing by the Veterans’ Review Board—and I think that is a very positive step. Section 88A of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act is reopened for certain persons who are eligible under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This will enable those eligible persons to receive specified treatment of a kind determined by the Repatriation Commission. The bill clarifies, for the purposes of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, who may lodge a claim on behalf of a member or dependant who is under the age of 18—this is particularly relevant for our cadets—and removes the unnecessary requirement for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a treatment path for a serving member.

The proposed changes and minor technical amendments contained in the bill will enhance my department’s capacity to deliver benefits and entitlements for our veteran and Defence Force community. This bill further demonstrates this government’s ongoing commitment to this very deserving group of Australians.

Before I close, let me just touch on some of the remarks that were made by the opposition spokesperson. There is a very worrying but seemingly consistent trend of the opposition being in the mode of grievance peddling. It seems not to be able to come to terms with positive or constructive solutions or suggestions about how to improve our repatriation system. That is solely the work of the government and government members. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might recall the Clarke review—a very comprehensive review looking at anomalies and suggestions for improving our system. There is not one sitting ALP member in this parliament who actually made a submission to that review. Thankfully, about six current Liberal and National members of parliament brought forward submissions to that review showing a freshness and an idea driven approach to repatriation services, rather than sitting back and seemingly endlessly carping over individual cases and then trying to argue that an individual case is representative of the broader system.

The opposition spokesman touched on one case. If it is the case I believe he is talking about, that matter was very quickly resolved upon it being known that the delay had occurred. My department recognised that a document was put in a wrong file and quickly identified that a mistake had been made, quickly apologised for that mistake and remedied the matter. The opposition would have you believe that that isolated incident represents the general experience of veterans, and it is simply not the case. The opposition seem to be looking at a complex, comprehensive system through a straw. They will look through the straw and see one particular example of the more than 30,000 claims that we receive a year—admittedly, a decline from around the 50,000 claims a year that were received some years ago—and say, ‘Look, there is this one case, this one anomaly, this one example, where an error has been made,’ and then try to make that out to be the case for all of the claims being processed by my department. It is simply unfair, unrepresentative and completely unhelpful.

My department is staffed by very dedicated, skilled and experienced people. In fact, I think those in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, on average, have the longest period of employment within a Commonwealth department, so committed are they to their work. That is an example where the opposition are not only letting themselves down; they are letting the veteran community down. Thankfully, there is much energy and much vigour within the government to ensure that our systems continue to evolve and improve.

Let me touch on an example. The opposition has been making much about claims processing times, arguing that there is some administrative malfunction or something going on and then drawing out selectively some material to evidence that case. In his contribution, the opposition spokesman again did this. One of his favourite examples is to be critical of the time taken for claims determined under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme. He says they have blown out by 400 per cent, but he does not mention the fact that only two cases were determined in the first year of the system—

See this speech in context