Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

Do you support them or not? A very good question. He should just answer the question. Let me make some observations about MRCA, which you have just asked about. The opposition is in no position to criticise the government on our commitment to review MRCA, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, which was a Labor Party 2007 election commitment. We have implemented 96 of the 108 recommendations. It is worth pointing out again that, like on the indexation issue, when the opposition were in government they refused to commit to any review of MRCA to ensure it was meeting the needs of our service men and women. They refused to do it. They did virtually nothing for the veterans community in 11 years of government, and their words are not backed up. Now, I am afraid, they are simply playing the politics of it.

Going to recommendation 22.2(a) on multiple-act compensation, this new methodology will apply to all future decisions on and from 1 July 2013. The majority of the veterans affected by the methodology will benefit financially from the new methodology being applied rather than the current one. Any veteran to whom the current methodology applies between now and 1 July 2013 may still benefit from the new methodology when their case is reviewed. The retrospective reviews will commence six months after 1 July 2013—that is, from January 2014. No-one will be disadvantaged by the reviews. Indeed, the majority are expected to benefit by a retrospective adjustment to their compensation for the MRCA accepted conditions. Where the new methodologies apply retrospectively and produce a lower outcome, the current methodology, the existing MRCA compensation, will continue.

The reviews will begin with the oldest case first. All cases since 1 July 2004 that have had the current methodology applied will be reviewed. DVA will identify the cases and actively review them. There will not be any need for the veteran to request a review. The number of retrospective reviews required to be done will not increase after 1 July 2013, because the new methodologies apply to new decisions from that date. As of 1 July 2013, there will be about 1,600 to 1,800 decisions to be reviewed. Many of these reviews, as one would expect, will be complex—they will involve multiple assessments dating to 1 July 2004. Each assessment will have to be recalculated using the new methodology, and it is expected that it will take 2½ years to review all cases. It is not expected that there will be any need for additional medical reviews to allow the new methodology to be applied. The government provided funding to DVA for the conduct of these assessments.

You have asked about the delays in implementation. I make it clear that considerable preparatory work is necessary before DVA can implement the accepted recommendations with an implementation date of 1 July 2013 or later. For some initiatives, system changes are required. There are 20 recommendations that require legislative amendment, instruments and determinations. Implementation of the 53 recommendations involving improvements to benefits systems or processes is a substantial body of work for the department.

On the issue of the single pathway through VRB, recommendations 17.1 and 17.2, the delay in implementation to 1 July 2014—another question that was asked by the shadow minister that was made clear in Senate estimates; I am not quite sure why you are asking the same question again—is to allow sufficient time for the detailed implications of the initiative to be worked through in consultation with all the stakeholders, including ex-service organisations, the legal profession, the Veterans' Review Board, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and others. The government has asked that further work be done and presented back to government in the 2014 budget, with a view to implementation from 1 July 2014. This is a significant and complex change associated with the appeals process. It is very important that enough time be allowed for consideration of all the issues so that the best possible process is available to those who need to have a primary decision review.

In its report the review identified a number of issues associated with the initiative that need to be resolved before implementation. It did not provide a solution to these issues. This work now needs to be done. It would not have been sensible to begin work until the government had made a decision in the 2012 budget to support recommendations 17.1 and 17.2. Do you want me to proceed with the advocacy model?

See this speech in context