Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion of the member for Maranoa. The motion before the House will encourage the government to do the right thing by those people who served and did the right thing by Australia. Back in August 1998 a continuous full-time service determination was signed, which rightly entitled those members of the CMF, now called the reserves, who served in Vietnam to the same benefits as permanent service men and women who gave active service. The motion before the House will ensure that those entitled to these benefits will be made aware of these changes and be enabled to access the benefits if applicable in their case. I do not seek to widen the entitlement net. This motion just seeks to right a wrong. The previous government ensured that the men and women who served in Vietnam as members of the CMF were included in the honours system. Servicemen were awarded the active service badge and their Vietnam clasp. Some of our CMF ex-servicemen were unaware of the 1998 ministerial determination, and I want this motion to correct that anomaly.

This is why this motion is before the House. I encouraged the member for Maranoa to move this motion, because he was the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs when the determination was signed. One of my constituents came to me after he had been advised following a claim to the Department of Finance and Administration that ‘there is no duty on DVA staff to provide unsolicited advice to any client in relation to benefits’. I seek leave to table that letter.

Leave granted.

I thank the House. I am outraged that this serviceman was advised that there was no duty on the DVA staff. Indeed, I contend the opposite. DVA staff do have a duty of care. My experience over many years has been that they do exercise that duty of care. The department’s service charter clearly states:

Our commitment is to …

• provide accurate, clear and consistent information …
• keep you fully informed of your rights and entitlements …

My constituent served with the CMF as a volunteer. He was attached to a Regular Army unit and served in South Vietnam. In August 1998, just six days prior to the ministerial determination, he again contacted the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and was advised that members of the CMF who served in South Vietnam were not regarded as veterans and therefore were not entitled to a DVA pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.

Six days later, unbeknown to him, the minister signed that determination, ensuring that those who served would be treated the same way under the act as permanent soldiers. No-one bothered to tell him. The determination received no publicity in the local media. There was no follow-up for those who had made applications and were rejected. It was not until 2006, after advice from the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service informed my constituent that he was indeed a veteran under the terms of the act, that he again made contact with the department. A service pension was subsequently granted on 9 November 2006. My constituent had retired in 1994. Following his 65th birthday in 2002 he was in receipt of an age pension, not a service pension. However, attempts to have the provisional commencement date changed to that of his original inquiry, back in 1998, were rejected.

I do not have time to elaborate any further. I believe that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs treats veterans in a very compassionate and caring way, and it has for many, many years. We have the most comprehensive and generous repatriation system in the world. I ask the government to look at this very carefully and use its discretion to back-pay retrospectively these people by means of an ex gratia payment. I thank the House.

See this speech in context