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

I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 and address some of the issues in these bills that relate to my responsibility as the shadow minister for veterans affairs and defence science and personnel. I want to talk about the recent tenders conducted by DVA with respect to the provision of veterans home care and community nursing services.

Firstly, the recent tender for the provision of veterans home care services: the Veterans Home Care program provides a wide range of low-level home care services designed to enable veterans and war widows and widowers to maintain their health and wellbeing and remain living independently in their own homes. The program provides care services to more than 70,000 veterans and war widows to assist them in living in their own homes for longer. These services include domestic assistance, personal care, safety related home and garden maintenance and respite care. This is a very important and worthwhile program that gives real help to the veterans community.

In June last year a nationwide tender process was undertaken for the delivery of veterans home care services. This is the first time such a review has occurred since the start of the program in 2001. I have some very real concern about the way this tender process was conducted. Naturally, as a result of this tender process, some existing assessment agencies and service providers did not have their contracts renewed. This in itself is not a problem, although it did raise issues for the veterans community that I feel were not addressed by this government. One of my concerns is that there was a lack of consultation among the users of the Veterans Home Care program. Most veterans first heard of a change in their providers and, therefore, carers via a letter over the Christmas period.

By their very nature, the recipients of veterans home care are vulnerable and are suffering from physical and/or mental frailties. To learn of this change at short notice caused understandable anxiety among those receiving this letter at an already stressful time. At the recent estimates round, the department was asked what consultation took place with the recipients of these services. Mr Ken Douglas, the general manager in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs responsible for service delivery, replied, ‘I am not aware of any specific consultation that we undertook during that tender period.’ Mr Douglas did say that consultation occurred among the National Treatment Monitoring Committee and the National Ex-service Round Table on Aged Care, but these are bodies that the recipients of the service have probably never heard about. It is no wonder that the recipients of this care did not know what the changes would mean for them.

The government should have explained these changes better. The veterans community deserved much more than a mere letter at short notice over the Christmas break making them aware of this change. Better consultation with the recipients could have prevented a lot of undue anxiety, stress and concern. What worries me most about this tender process is that throughout it the government failed to acknowledge the importance and value of the relationship that often exists between carers and veterans.

Many veterans have been with their carers for five years or more. Over this time they have formed a relationship with and an understanding of each other. Obviously, carers who have worked with veterans over such a long period better understand their needs and also provide a warm friendship—the value of which cannot be underestimated. There is no doubt in my mind that the new providers will be providing the same tangible services to the veterans community. However, the intangible value of long-term relationships and companionship that is so important among the vulnerable was ignored by the government.

During the Christmas period, my office heard from many veterans about their concerns in respect of this tender. We heard from Sid Lucas, a 105-year-old veteran from Rosebud in Victoria, who was concerned about losing his long-term carer, Chris. Sid had known Chris for a number of years and could not imagine not having him around. There was also William Young, an 83-year-old veteran from Mount Martha in Victoria, who was concerned about losing Glenda, another long-term carer. Both still have their carers as their new providers are yet to find replacements, so they are still waiting and are still worried. These are just two examples of veterans who contacted our office and wanted their concerns to be publicly noted as they felt they were being ignored by this government. I have heard of more that have been affected in the same way, including a younger veteran who required these services due to a disability he suffered. That veteran has two young kids that he has to support. He was worried what the effect on his kids would be when his carer changed as she had grown close to the kids and provided them with much-needed help.

The minister has publicly stated that the tender round had nothing to do with money. If that is the case, I question exactly what criteria could have been used to determine who the new providers would be. I would have thought that the value of existing relationships between carers and veterans would have been high among any criteria for a contract of this sort. Instead the government seems to have focused solely on the provision of tangible services. I believe that this was a mistake. It does not reflect the reality that a number of those receiving this service have special needs, are often vulnerable, both physically and mentally, and benefit greatly from having a companion that understands what they need. This government needs to understand one thing and understand it clearly: carers are not just cleaners; they are companions. Instead of conducting a tender process that would have been more suited to a tender for mere cleaning services, this government should have recognised the value of carers. There should have been greater consultation, and the value of long-term relationships between carers and veterans should have been recognised.

In a situation similar to that of the veterans home care tender, a national tender for the provision of community nursing services was conducted last year. Community nursing is a service provided in the person’s home to restore health following illness, to allow a person to maintain the best level of independence and to allow for dignified death. This service is available for gold card holders where the person has a clinical need for the nursing and has been referred by a local medical officer. For white card holders the condition requiring nursing must also be an accepted disability. This is a very worthwhile and valuable program for the veterans community. At the time of the tender, concerns were raised among some veterans and providers about the lack of consultation provided. There were also concerns that new providers may not provide the same type of service that had previously been provided. The government typically dismissed all of these concerns.

I want to read from an email that I received from the daughter of a veteran from northern Tasmania. She remains very concerned about the services her father is receiving from one of the new providers that were selected in this tender. I will leave out the name of the new provider. This email has raised a number of concerns which, I have been told, had been raised with the minister and department on a number of occasions. The email says:

I have had to prompt the new Provider re my father’s due dates for catheter changes (September 25th); with our previous service provider all aspects of Dad’s care was always organised and projected, and always attendance times were negotiated.

My father had a fall on Friday 22nd September. As a result he required 2nd daily dressings. I advised the new provider of this, but was told there would be no available nurse until the afternoon of Monday 25th. I question if unavailability of nursing staff breaches the DVA contract requirements, as service is supposed to be 7 days per week.

On October 2nd I requested for my father to have an earlier shift for Wednesday October 18th, as he was due to be admitted at 8.00 am for day surgery. The new provider advised me some days later that his roster had been altered for an early start for Wednesday 11th October (one week early). Bearing in mind that veterans do not require mistakes such as this to be made by their providers; not all have family members “on tap” to pick up the mistakes.

On Sunday 5th November the support worker arrived 1hr & 15 minutes late for the morning shift. This is not the first time this has happened. There is never an explanatory phone call, so I can only wonder at the new provider’s policy and expected protocol in this situation (this is cause for concern re mobility, fluid and medication issues).

On Thursday 18th January 2007 a similar instance to the above point occurred, whereby a worker still hadn’t arrived one hour after her expected arrival time. After the incident on 5th November I requested, at the very least, for the new provider to give me a courtesy call if this was to happen again. But no call to explain was given, again I had to phone the provider to discover what was happening for my father that morning.

This is completely unacceptable and I urge the minister to properly consider the issues this correspondence raises.

I have talked about two national tenders that the department has conducted over the last year relating to very important services provided to the veterans community, namely the Veterans Home Care program and community nursing services. In both cases the government failed to consult properly with the recipients before a change in their service. They have failed to acknowledge the value of existing providers’ experience and knowledge and the intangibles that form over time with existing providers. This is an insensitive and out of touch government. In both of these cases these problems could have been averted.

I accept that new tenders may have been required but if, as the minister insists, this has nothing to do with money, why not include the intangible values that attach to long-term providers in any evaluation of potential tenderers? Also, in both cases the government could have conducted tenders for all new services required. By this I mean that existing carers and nurses could have remained in place with their clients until their services were no longer required. Any new clients could have been provided with a carer or nurse from the new providers following the tender round. This would have ensured continuity of service and provided the department with a chance to re-tender to new organisations.

Finally, the government could have consulted much better with the actual recipients of these services. In fact, if it had listened to and consulted with the community, it would have heard from them that the two suggestions I have just outlined would have helped to solve their problems. I know this because it is from the veteran community that I got these suggestions after listening to their concerns and anxieties. This government needs to pick up its performance in relation to its tendering of these services. It should stop treating the veterans as mere economic units and start listening to what they really want and need.

This brings me to the current review of the chaplaincy services in South Australia. I have recently outlined my concerns with regard to this review—firstly, that the churches are not included formally as members of this review and, secondly, that the review will be used to reduce the level of funding for this vital service. Despite Labor calling on the government to include the churches as representatives on this review, the government has failed to acknowledge the benefits that this would have. There is no chaplaincy expertise on the current review panel. I cannot understand why the government will not allow the churches to play a formal role in the review, especially considering that they fund a portion of the chaplaincy services provided.

If I were to be cynical I would say that it would seem that the government specifically does not want this type of expertise as it has already made up its mind on the issue. At the recent estimates round the department head, Mr Sullivan, would not offer any guarantee that the funding for this service would not be reduced. The actual providers of this service describe it as: ‘Spiritual care provided in a person-centred manner to patients and their families and to staff who are in crisis due to illness or other life troubles. It involves deep listening, compassion, wise counsel, prayer and spiritual religious rituals that support the person in the midst of difficult circumstances.’ From this description it is not hard to see how valuable this would be to the veteran community.

I have made my view on this clear before and I will restate it now: chaplaincy services play a major role in the rehabilitation of veterans and their families. I strongly oppose any reduction in these services, especially given the unique rehabilitation and mental health challenges that are often faced by our injured veterans. Apart from this current review into these services in South Australia, I have concerns surrounding possible reductions to the chaplaincy funding provided to other states, especially Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. I will continue to seek information from DVA on any proposed funding cuts to these services anywhere in Australia.

I want to finish by outlining some of the positive work done by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to protection of the Kokoda Track. We are all aware of the mess the government has made of the works and maintenance of Anzac Cove in Gallipoli. Labor has been chasing the government with regard to concerns it has over the potential impact of mining and logging on the Kokoda Track. Only after Labor raised this issue on a number of occasions did the government act by sending a delegation to Papua New Guinea to investigate the issue. We are still to learn of the actual outcomes of this delegation. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition released his policy on this issue on 21 January this year. I will now read from his announcement:

A Federal Labor Government would campaign at the United Nations to place the historic Kokoda Track on UNESCO’s official world heritage register list to ensure its protection.

I have spoken to the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare, to offer Australia’s support for the world heritage listing.

As we approach Australia Day and our thoughts turn to our national identity, I would like to see the 96-kilometre historic Kokoda Track receive permanent and final protection.

The formal UNESCO listing would complement a master plan released last year by the Kokoda Track Foundation ... which proposes a Kokoda National Memorial Park and the development of a sustainable echo-trekking strategy.

A Federal Labor Government also commits itself to working with the KTF to find ways to protect the historic site. Listing on the UNESCO world heritage register would help to protect against threats such as mining exploration and logging.

In addition to political and diplomatic support in the World Heritage Committee—

Labor—

could also provide the PNG government with technical assistance and expert advice and support of the lengthy and detailed listing process.

Critical to this plan would be ensuring that people from all over the world can continue to visit and trek through this historic site.

Kokoda is not a war. It is certainly not a holiday. It is a pilgrimage.

A World Heritage Listing for Kokoda would be a cause for celebration for all Australians as we approach Australia Day.

Last year, there was a strong and heartfelt national outcry about a mining exploration plan near the Kokoda track—and we never want to see the track under threat again.

Kokoda is beginning to take its place alongside Gallipoli in Australia’s military history.

The bravery of the young men who fought on the Kokoda track was crucial to our survival during World War II. In 1942 Australian troops fought one of their most difficult battles on the track as they halted the Japanese advance towards the PNG capital, Port Moresby, and Australia’s northern coastline. The Australian Army sustained heavy casualties in the campaign, with approximately 625 killed and over 1,600 wounded. In addition, the Army sustained more than 4,000 casualties as a result of illness caused by the difficult conditions on the track.

The bravery and the symbolism of Kokoda must never be forgotten—or disturbed.

I would like to see Australia and PNG work together to protect this historic Kokoda track for future generations.

This was a positive step forward that I warmly welcome and it stands in stark contrast to the government’s general inaction in this area.

There continues to be a number of very important issues facing the veterans community that are currently not being addressed adequately by this government. I have outlined my concerns in regard to some of these issues and I will continue to raise concerns about a wide range of issues throughout this year. The concerns I outline go to the core of providing for the health of our veterans and their families. The government needs to be doing better in this area. I am also pleased to outline again the action that Labor has taken in respect of the protection of the Kokoda Track. The Kokoda Track holds an important place in our military and cultural heritage and I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has taken action that will help provide for its future protection.

I would also be remiss on this occasion not to take a minute to just cover one other issue in relation to the Kokoda Track—that is, the recent comments by the defence minister with respect to this issue. In his defence, the Minister for Defence maintains that he was not comparing the nature of the military action on the Kokoda Track with that in relation to Iraq. I take him at his word and I have no doubt that that is in fact what he meant. However, I have to say that I think it was an incredibly insensitive intervention by him in the first place in a deliberate speech to link the situation we face today to what occurred on Kokoda. The minister has to understand that major events in our military history such as Kokoda cannot be used in the manner in which he sought to. The fact of the matter is that the circumstances around what occurred at Kokoda have a special place in our history here in Australia where there are many veterans who survive and live on with the events that occurred, the injuries that they sustained, the memories that they have and the loss of many of their comrades. For the minister to endeavour to raise that in the context of recent circumstances I think was unfortunate and ill-advised. I note that it has been commented on by the RSL, by veterans themselves and by many others in the community as being not the thing that he should have done. I certainly endorse the fact that he should think more carefully before he uses such analogies in the future.

See this speech in context