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

Briefly, with respect to the matter raised by the shadow minister on the dental program, I have to be honest with you: I am not aware and I do not believe there has been any change with respect to the operation of approvals. However, I will undertake to get back to the member in the next couple of days on that. If she is happy with that, I will do that direct to her office, but I am advised that there has been no change in the process. If she has got some information she would like me to take on board in following that through, I would be very happy to have that and act upon it.

With respect to the F111 deseal-reseal issue raised by the member for Blair, he is quite correct: this was an issue which was raised with me in the lead-up to the last election. The treatment of the individuals involved in that program has been a running sore. Some of the cases are, as you know, incredibly tragic with respect to the impact on families and individuals, and there is no doubt there is a range of issues which the people involved believe are outstanding and need to be addressed. There have been concerns raised with respect to the operation of the ex gratia payments, as to how you qualify, the arbitrary nature of the size of them and when they apply. There have been concerns raised about when someone qualifies for it in terms of whether they were seen as being directly deseal-reseal, pick and patch or involved in other aspects of activities at the base.

What we committed to in the lead-up to the election, at their urging, was a parliamentary inquiry for those matters to be aired in a public sense and to try and see if we could get to the bottom of some of the issues involved. We will have to see the results of this particular inquiry which, as the member mentioned, has been instigated and kicked off in the last few days by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade’s Defence Subcommittee, which is chaired by the member for Brisbane, the Hon. Arch Bevis. The member for Brisbane will have carriage of that inquiry with the other members. As members know the committee has representation from both sides of the House. From memory, I think the previous member for Blair had a big interest in this matter as well, and I know there are other members of the opposition who also are concerned about what has occurred in this area.

As to the nature of the parliamentary inquiry, as I understand it, submissions have now been called for and the closing date late is this month. I stress that all of this is subject to the committee, so it is up to them, but my understanding is that they have set that date. My understanding and my experience of parliamentary committees are that if submissions arrive late they generally are considered but that will of course be up to the particular committee to decide. As I said, submissions will be received from that time I have just mentioned. They will need to be in writing. However, I am sure it is like with any other parliamentary committee, where individuals can write in and seek to appear before a committee. How the committee handle any questions as to programs, witnesses and where they take evidence is up to them. But my understanding from the committee chair is that there would be at least a hearing in Ipswich, and certainly the intention is to try to ensure that those who have been impacted upon by this issue will have the chance to take part in the process in a proper manner.

I do not wish to comment on the question of what the inquiry might find. To be frank with you, I do not know. I know that what came across to me in the foggy world of opposition was that there were certainly a range of issues which remained worthy of consideration because the impact on a number of people appeared quite tragic. I look forward to the inquiry considering the issues, deliberating properly—as I am sure it will do—and then, at some stage in the future, considering recommendations for action. I would urge any people who feel they have been impacted upon by this matter to get in touch with the committee secretariat and get a submission into it.

In respect of the matter raised by the member for Gilmore on post-Korean War veterans and the report—and I know she has had a longstanding interest in this issue—the commitment stands. (Extension of time granted) The recommendations are split between Defence and Veterans’ Affairs because a number of the issues relate to medallic recognition, which is being handled by the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, and there are other issues which relate to consultation with the Australian War Memorial on the question of appropriate recognition et cetera, which are in fact within the purview of Veterans’ Affairs. Discussions are continuing within that department about what might be done in those circumstances. I note that I have been talking to Ian Crawford, who, as the member would know, was one of the co-chairs of the committee, about how the matter should be progressed. There are discussions which relate to the War Memorial, as to their recognition in the circumstances, as the member would also be aware. As I recall, the recommendations were carefully structured to say that the committee wished that this recognition be raised with the War Memorial. The War Memorial Council is independent of government with respect to those issues.

See this speech in context