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

I thank the member for Dobell for his question. This budget builds on the record of the Rudd Labor government in providing assistance to veterans and the ex-service community in the areas in which they really need them. In total terms, we are talking about a record budget on this occasion of some $12.1 billion. Let us not forgot that this is in a situation where, as many of our World War II veterans enter their twilight years, the overall size of our veteran community is shrinking.

There is some $246 million plus in new initiatives. I would like to particularly address three of them today. Firstly, there is $152.7 million over four years to expand community based health services aimed at Australian veterans and war widows with chronic conditions, our frailest veterans and war widows. This is designed to keep them out of hospital and in their own homes in the environment where they are most comfortable for a longer period. This is a very positive step forward and builds on the record of improved services across this area in recent years.

There are also two other particular initiatives that I would like to go to which address longstanding concerns and build on commitments made when in opposition and now in a government that we are proud to be part of. Members would know of the question around the issue of F111 deseal/reseal maintenance workers and the concerns that have been raised over a number of years with respect to them.

There was a scheme under the previous government which dealt with the concerns of those who were seen to be formally part of the maintenance area. However, there have been a range of concerns raised about the fact that many workers who had an involvement in the area were denied access to that scheme. There were ex gratia payments available on an arbitrary basis to people according to the number of days that it was identified that they had spent in the tanks. But frankly there was not a proper recognition of the circumstances that these people faced with respect to the health conditions that they had subsequently developed.

The government has fulfilled our commitment made in opposition—which, I remind people, was to have a parliamentary inquiry into that scheme. I would like to particularly note the chair of that committee, the member for Brisbane, and congratulate him on the work that he and others have done with respect to that process. I might also add that in the circumstances it should not be forgotten that when we made that commitment the opportunity was there for the opposition, then in government, to match that commitment. No commitment was made.

The fact is, that inquiry identified a number of concerns. Those concerns were dealt with fairly and justly through the recommendations of that committee. Although we have not accepted all of the recommendations, we have accepted the key points from that inquiry. One of the key points is that some 2,400 workers were denied access to the scheme as a result of the way it had been designed. What is also clear is that a number of those people have developed conditions which have been identified through the SHOAMP health scheme as quite possibly—and almost certainly in many cases—related to their exposure to chemicals in these circumstances. By giving them access under the SRCA legislation and section 7.2, which identifies conditions recognised as being part of what could develop as a result of these exposures, the government estimates that some $55 million in additional compensation and healthcare support, including counselling for families, will be provided.

This is an area that has caused enormous problems to the families involved and to the workers involved. And it is certainly true that some people feel there are concerns that certain circumstances have not been addressed. However, there is absolutely no doubt that this will mean that many workers who are dealing with the aftermath of their exposures will now be provided with real support.

The second matter I would like to raise is the question of the government’s response to the Clarke review recommendations which were not implemented by the previous government. Members would remember that in the early part of this century the previous government instigated a review under Justice Clarke around a broad-ranging set of recommendations which went to a whole range of issues within the ex-service community. A number of those were addressed. A number were not. The review that has come down has addressed several of those recommendations that are substantive, several more that, it is fair to say, are minor, and others that are still under consideration.

The key point I go to here is the issue around participants in British nuclear tests. I want to make it very clear here that the government was asked, when in opposition, to accept that recommendation. The commitment that was made was that we would review the Clarke report with specific reference to that. The result of that consideration—I am very pleased to be able to say this, today—is that what we were asked to do by the nuclear veteran representatives, the government has now done. Again, other matters remain open for consideration, and there is no doubt that some nuclear test representatives have said that they intend to pursue other matters in other forums. That is their right.

I am proud that this government took the step that the previous government would not take, and has recognised that it was identified though that independent inquiry that this was an issue that ought to be addressed, and has given these people the benefit of the doubt. We estimate, again, that somewhere in the region of in excess of $24 million in compensation and support will be provided by giving these people access to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act under the headline of non-warlike hazardous service. I think it is a positive step forward. It will allow those who have developed conditions which can be related to their service to receive compensation, and I think that is something that is long overdue.

See this speech in context