Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 contains three elements and I will speak briefly on the first and last before my main area of interest—that is, the enhanced medical and dental benefits promised to our Defence Force members and their families by the current government in the course of their election campaign in 2007. The first issue is in relation to the adoption of the emblem described as the red crystal and sometimes referred to as the third Protocol emblem, pursuant to the protocol III amendment to the Geneva conventions. I understand that 28 countries have so far agreed to ratify the convention, but I am open to correction as to an up-to-date number. Nevertheless, the amendment which this bill asks us to ratify for Australia demonstrates a gradual evolution from identifying organisations based on specific cultural or religious origins.

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement uses symbols that reflect religious backgrounds, being a red cross to symbolise the Western world and a red crescent to symbolise the Muslim world. There is no denying that this distinction is causing some difficulties on the international stage, despite the fact that both elements of the organisation work towards the same end. My research indicates that there was an attempt to introduce a red shield of David that would represent Israel’s humanitarian organisation, but that did not succeed. As an initiative to neutralise these differences so that energies can be focused on the task at hand, the adoption of a universally accepted symbol is a positive move. It allows a third option to be adopted—that is, the symbol of the red crystal. I applaud the convention because it does not seek to overturn the use of either of the existing symbols, which some countries may prefer to continue to use. Without entering into a contentious debate over religious icons, I just say that I support this initiative unreservedly and will move on to the last provision of the bill.

I think the critical function that the Pine Gap joint facility plays in Australia’s defence structure is self-evident. Since its establishment some 40 years ago, it has sometimes been the focus of groups protesting various military activities related to the United States. That has certainly created some law and order issues, which have led to some legal challenges for the authorities. The provisions in the bill clarify the legal status of the facility and should assist in addressing any grey areas in terms of future legal challenges to its existence. Again, I support the provision.

I now move on to the core of my interest in this bill—that is, Labor’s 2007 election promise of free medical and dental care for ADF families. It is worth while repeating their promise. This is what they said prior to 10 November 2007:

ADF families can face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially in regional and remote localities.

Posting to a remote location can mean that ADF families struggle to access the sort of health care that Australians enjoy.

A Rudd Labor Government will progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children.

Labor will begin this with a $33.1 million investment starting at 12 Defence Family Health Care Clinics, with a focus on remote bases locations and major regional centres.

It cannot get any clearer than that. Moving now to the 2008 budget, Labor’s first budget, what do we find? Their absolute promise was downgraded to a trial—so all bets are off. Instead of $33.1 million to give life to their core promise, the promise morphed into $12.2 million over four years to trial the concept. This is tantamount to a breach of fair trading legislation, which outlaws the practice of advertising non-existent bargains. When you go to get the bargain, they have suddenly just sold out and say, ‘How about this other great deal?’ The question needs to be asked: what on earth possessed you to make such a core promise when it is clear you had no idea what was involved? If you were so certain that you could state the promise in unequivocal terms then what has happened since?

I well remember the Labor candidate for Gilmore making his one and only promise for Gilmore, and that was the free medical and dental services for our Defence Force personnel and families at HMAS Albatross. He made no other undertaking during the campaign, and banking all your chances on a single promise can hardly be described as a challenge. However, there being only one issue for Gilmore does not say much for the importance of the residents of Gilmore to the Labor Party—just one promise, and even that could not be met. I think this broken promise is a serious breach of faith and trust with the members of our defence forces and their families. To rub salt into the wound, the government now wants to cut defence jobs. Where is their credibility as far as supporting our troops is concerned? Nevertheless, I am compelled to support this bill—not that I agree with it, but at least something is better than nothing.

In these uncertain times, our defence forces are our best insurance policy in protecting Australia’s sovereignty. We just deployed a contingent to assist in the Victorian bushfire tragedy, as we have done in countless civilian emergencies in the past. Yet what we are seeing here is the government turning their backs on our defence forces with a broken promise. They want to cut back on spending, and that will certainly have an impact on my electorate, not only for defence personnel but also for all the civvy jobs that are reliant on defence. Labor’s now broken election promise acknowledged:

ADF families can face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependents, especially in regional and remote localities.

After that admission, why break your promise? The situation has not changed, and it is not the case that since that promise was made pre-November 2007 somehow ADF families no longer face significant difficulties. Gilmore is a garrison town and we are very proud of our defence men and women. HMAS Albatross is essential to our economic wellbeing. Our men and women are still serving in remote locations and Labor promised a free medical and dental service. The need still exists and that promise must hold. Labor must now explain why they have broken their promise. This breach brings into question Labor’s credibility in respect of their relationship with the defence forces. In Gilmore it resurrects the doubt that was created by the dissolution of the Fleet Air Arm, the civilianisation of the Defence Force under the previous Labor government and what is generally perceived as the antimilitary attitude of some in the Labor Party.

I support unreservedly the adoption of the red crystal convention and the enhancement of the legislation affecting the Pine Gap joint facility, but I support with reservations the provisions of this bill that allow only a partial trial of an unequivocal promise. There remain a number of unanswered questions, such as whether these provisions apply to the reserves and whether the families of cadets are included. Can the government provide clarification on how a household will be defined? What will this do to Navy Health and other defence-only private health insurance funds that currently provide reduced health cover for ADF families? Can the government detail what model is to be used to determine dependency? There are more questions that need to be asked and we will certainly be scrutinising even more closely what Labor are actually promising and, more so, whether the government have brazenly adopted Graham Richardson’s infamous motto of ‘whatever it takes’. My final question to the government on this matter right now is: will the government provide honest and open detail of the relevant proposed regulations?

See this speech in context