Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I will not go through all the issues raised in the Main Committee, but I do thank the House for returning the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010 to the chamber to deal with what in my view is a very important amendment. The amendment, for those who were not in the Main Committee, encapsulates the issue that surrounds particularly our Second World War veterans who did not qualify for what is currently, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, called qualifying service. They served their nation during the Second World War—they enlisted and they did as they were ordered to do. In some cases soldiers went overseas and fought in various theatres of war, in which case they qualified for various health card and other benefits. Those soldiers who served during that time but did not go overseas or were not in the Darwin or Townsville areas and some other areas in Papua New Guinea during the conflict, so were not in areas where an angry shot was fired, do not have qualifying service and as a consequence do not receive the gold card for health care.

I understand the reasons and I noted with interest Justice Clarke’s report of a few years back. There have been a number of reports on this issue. I have moved my second reading amendment so that both sides of the parliament can actually think about where these people actually sit in our nation. They enlisted, they were prepared to serve and they would have served wherever they were sent. In a lot of cases soldiers were sent overseas, and now they receive the benefits. Most of these people are well into their eighties, and most of them are requiring some degree of health care. Some of them consider themselves to be second-class soldiers. A few years ago a man in his nineties went to his grave—and I had fought for this amendment for many years; I first introduced this amendment in 2002—thinking he was a second-class soldier because he served for five years and was never ordered to go overseas. I made the point in the Main Committee—and I do thank the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for being here—that my father served in the Middle East. I am very proud of that, but if the Japanese had broken through in New Guinea he would have been next to useless in defending Australia. The people who would have been the most useful were the soldiers who were still in Australia, because they had been ordered to stay in Australia just in case these events occurred. As history has unfolded, obviously the Japanese did not break through. Those men are considered to be different from those who gave service similar to my father’s. They do not receive those benefits.

I just say to the House—and I know the rules of money bills—that the amendment is essentially about sending the message that we do actually care about those people. The people we are talking about are dying at the rate of 800 a month, so this is not an exponential budgetary commitment that is going to be made; it is more a recognition that they are equal to those who served overseas. Those people may well have only been on a boat near New Guinea and were never shot at, but, because there had been reports of submarines in those areas—sight unseen—they qualify for the gold card. Others who were there six months later do not qualify for the gold card.

I will not say any more than that. People can refer to what I said in the Main Committee. I just ask members to give real consideration to this amendment. It does not require the government to suddenly find additional funds in the budget, but it does show some good faith to those men and women who are still alive and do not have qualifying service but gave unqualified service to this nation and were prepared to die for it, and they should be recognised through the granting of the gold card for health purposes.

See this speech in context