Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures) Bill 2014. The bill reflects the view of this government—and I know it is a view shared by both sides of the House and by most Australians—that our men and women who have given service or are still serving in our military forces deserve to have any adverse consequences of that service, whatever they might be, adequately dealt with. Too often there are mental health consequences for veterans and their families during or following the period of active service or when training in Australia. This bill addresses mental health support for our defence forces as one of its key aims.

The government's current expenditure on mental health services is not capped but, rather, it is demand driven, as it should be. Some $166 million a year is currently spent on veterans, serving members and their dependants. This bill goes further in expanding access and the services that are required to make sure that no-one, whether man or woman, serving is left with mental health or other conditions that impact on their own lives, their own wellbeing and the lives of their families.

Key measures in this bill aim to strengthen mental health services through increased access to non-liability health care and the expansion of access to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, or the VVCS. Currently online mental health information and support, GP services, psychologists, social worker services, special psychiatric services, pharmaceuticals, PTSD programs, inpatient and outpatient hospital treatments—all of those—are provided annually, but from 1 July 2014 access to treatment under non-liability healthcare arrangements will be expanded to include diagnosed conditions of alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder regardless of whether the condition is service related.

My father is a legatee. He is just about to turn 90. He has been a member of Legacy since he returned from the Second World War, ironically himself very seriously injured. I can remember all through my early days the struggles he would have in trying to help one of his war widows to get a pension. He would argue that the husband's death was smoking related which in turn was related to his war service or that it was related to some other substance abuse which in turn was related to his war service. These arguments would go on for months and sometimes years while the widow was denied any real means of support. It was often a terrible business trying to argue that what the serviceman—sometimes they were ex-prisoners of war—who had come through the World War II experience alive but with serious mental or physical injuries, prematurely died of was related to his war service. We are going to do away with that sort of argument and distinction by acknowledging that there is support for someone who has been in our defence forces without having to directly relate their service to the condition.

I am also very concerned that we understand—and this bill picks up this message—that it is the partners, children and sometimes the grandchildren of our Defence Force personnel who also carry the burden and impact of the mental health consequences of their loved one. This bill understands the importance of access to counselling services through the VVCS for dependants. I strongly support these measures.

There are a number of Vietnam veterans in my community, and I am proudly the patron of the Goulburn Valley Vietnam Veterans. Their partners and their children talk to me about the lifelong impacts that they have experienced since their loved ones served and how their lives have been altered and often damaged by the consequences of the way we treated our Vietnam veterans, in particular immediately after that war. Scorn was poured on the heads of our Vietnam veterans as they came home, having done the task the country asked of them, proudly wearing our uniform. They were told to get out of that uniform as fast as possible and not mention their Vietnam War experience. They were often told to hide themselves away because there was a suggestion, particular through the media, that there was shame on their heads as participants in a struggle that was trying to preserve the democracy and peace of the South Vietnamese.

We have in Australia come a long way in understanding that, if someone puts on a uniform for Australia, whether a man or a woman, whether Army, Navy or Air Force, and they do the heavy lifting for our nation that we ask of them as we try to support others, whether it is East Timor, a peacekeeping mission or an actual armed conflict like in Iraq or Afghanistan, we accept responsibility for the health and wellbeing of that person and their family for the rest of their lives. I certainly support the previous speaker the member for Lingiari, who was himself responsible in the portfolio for many of these matters, in saying that this is a lifelong responsibility we owe to our serving men and women and those serving men and women after they have left the service.

I suppose I am particularly focused on this matter because my own son continues to be in the Army, and for a time I shared accommodation with him out at Duntroon and was regularly in conversation with his fellow serving officers. I am very aware of the pressures, the strain upon serving families as they are expected to be more than the average Australian man and woman when it comes to their decorum and the way they manage their professional as well as their after-work life. While there have been a number of studies done in the United States looking at the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly following a number of deployments in Afghanistan, we have also been doing serious work in Australia. The University of Adelaide undertook a prevalence and wellbeing study of mental health in the Australian Defence Force in 2010. Their report was provided to the Vice Chief of the Defence Force to better inform how we should respond to mental health matters.

The key findings included that 22 per cent of the ADF population—that is 11,016 people, or one in five—had experienced a mental health disorder in the previous 12 months when the study was undertaken and that the ADF lifetime prevalence rates of mental health issues are higher than in the Australian community sample that was used, but that their experience of mental health issues in the previous 12 months were similar to the community at large. Anxiety disorders were the most common mental disorder type in the ADF, with higher prevalence amongst females. We know that the working environment for women in the Defence Force has been under close scrutiny in the past few years—the business of sexual harassment has been highlighted and carefully dealt with by our most senior Defence Force personnel—and there is no doubt that women who choose to join the Army, Navy and Air Force do enter into a traditionally male domain and often the expectations of them, operating as women in those environments, can, as they found in this study, lead to a higher prevalence of common mental disorders amongst women in the Defence Force. We need to be very conscious of that and make sure the culture of our Defence Force continues to change to make it as comfortable for women as it is men as they undertake their service in uniform for our country.

As I said, from 1 July 2014 the access to treatment under non-liability healthcare arrangements will be expanded to include diagnosed conditions of alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder regardless of whether the condition is service related. Also from 1 July 2014, eligibility for treatment under non-liability healthcare arrangements for members of the Defence Force with peacetime service only will be expanded by removing the current cut-off date of 7 April 1994. That is a very important change given that peacetime service can often involve very intensive and sometimes traumatic training and it can also mean that families are separated for long periods of time. It is important that we recognise the peacetime service of Defence Force personnel and the need for them to also have proper healthcare. This will mean that all those with at least three years continuous full-time peacetime service will now be eligible for non-liability healthcare for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depressive disorders and alcohol and substance abuse disorders.

From 1 July 2014 we will include support for border protection services, services in a disaster zone—whether in Australia or overseas—service as a submariner, and personnel involved in accidents while training and members medically discharged. Of course this is only right and proper, and I applaud these changes. We also have mental health services for veterans, members and their families being further improved through the expansion of the client groups eligible for counselling through the VVCS. I have referred to the fact that families also share in the impacts on their loved ones. Whether that is abuse of alcohol or other substances, whether it is anger, depression, suicide or thoughts of suicide, it is the families that must live with and try to nurture and support their loved ones. If those are their experiences, then obviously extending counselling to families is very important and an important part of this new bill.

Another significant measure in the bill will enhance the operations of the Veterans' Review Board, also known as VRB. The VRB provides merit reviews of decisions relating to disability and war widower pension compensation and other entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This bill will introduce a legislative framework for alternative dispute resolution processes, including conferencing and mediation. This is an important new direction and I applaud it.

I want to return to the findings of the University of Adelaide's prevalence and wellbeing study in my final remarks. It is very important for us to understand that while our ADF population in many ways is very like the non-ADF population in how it responds to stress, the findings were that deployed personnel were 10 times more likely to seek care for mental health or family problems. Forty-three per cent of ADF members have multiple deployments, 19 per cent only one and 39 per cent have never been deployed. But despite how often you have been deployed, it is significant that this bill ensures that all personnel will be eligible for support and treatment, that access to support will not be confined to those who have had a certain number of deployments or if they have been deployed at all.

In the previous year of the University of Adelaide study, 17.9 per cent of ADF members sought help for stress, emotional or mental health, or family problems. The problem ins that while 17.9 per cent sought help, many others chose not to seek that help because of the stigma associated with identifying yourself as anxious or perhaps considering doing yourself harm. We found in this study by the University of Adelaide that 47.6 per cent believed that they would be treated differently if they reported their mental health issues, while 26.9 per cent believed it would harm their career. I think that is a problem. We have got to change the culture in the defence forces so it is not stigmatising if you present with mental health issues or substance abuse issues. The highest rated barrier to seeking help was concern that it would reduce deployability—that was 36.9 per cent. There you have our Defence Force personnel wanting to do their job, wanting to be deployed, but aware that if they report their mental health issues that it might affect their chances of being able to be deployed, which is a very important part of their career.

I applaud this bill. It is a very important one and I acknowledge the bipartisan support for it.

See this speech in context