Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Veterans'’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2018. This bill is designed to streamline several internal processes which will assist both the Department of Veterans' Affairs and individual veterans in accessing entitlements. Of course, Labor is always supportive of improvements which make it easier for veterans to interact with the department, and of changes which improve the timeliness of claims. When it comes to delivering public services and public goods, we need to constantly look at how we can improve the experience of those we seek to serve. When I talk with veterans around this country, what I hear is that many veterans, especially those who have been clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs for some time, are very happy with the service that is provided. But it's clear that, for some of the veterans trying to put in a claim or be part of the new system, it is not always easy. They find it difficult at times. Anything that we can do to make this process easier for them is critically important.

The need to focus on continuous improvement has been highlighted by a recent report by the Australian National Audit Office: Efficiency of veterans service delivery by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. This report, released in June, highlighted a number of concerns about the Department of Veterans Affairs' processing times. The report found that veterans are still facing, in some cases, excessive wait times and inefficient service from the department. In addition, the report determined that, while the majority of services is delivered within time frames, a minority of claims still takes an excessively long period to process, due to inefficient handling by the department. I really want to be clear: the report found that it is not the veterans' or the advocates' errors in not providing information; the report found that systems within the department could be improved to reduce the wait time for veterans.

The ANAO report observed that one claim was effectively lost for 183 days between its registration and its assignment to the relevant processing area, and it wasn't detected by the department. This means that for six months the claim wasn't processed and for six months a veteran waited for a response to their application for support, and the application wasn't even being assessed. Sadly, this wasn't picked up by government processes or by the department, meaning that the ANAO had not recognised that it had not been reviewed and did not know how long it would have taken for this to be noticed. There was another case highlighted by the ANAO which detailed a situation where a claim took an extra 148 days longer to process because of inactivity in the department.

These are issues we need to seek to address. I recognise the work by the department to address some of these issues and the effort that is going into ensuring they are addressed. But we must not take our eye off the ball. Our veterans absolutely deserve world-class care and support. Continuous improvement is critical. The parliament, the government and the department must continue to focus on continuous improvement to ensure that every veteran is able to get their claim processed in a timely manner and that there are not hold-ups as a result of inefficient or ineffective systems within the department.

This bill is a small step but a step towards improving the experience of veterans. Schedule 1 of this bill is designed to enable the Chief of the Defence Force to make a claim for liability on behalf of current serving ADF members where they have given their consent. Currently, a person affected by injury or disease must make a claim; however, in some circumstances, a claim can be made by another person on their behalf. This amendment will provide another avenue for claiming, which may streamline the claims process and, in some instances, potentially facilitate earlier acceptance of liability.

In addition, schedule 1 has the potential to be beneficial to veterans seeking services some time after injury or disease, with a claim having been established at the time of injury or disease. Labor certainly supports this, with the caveat that obviously the consent of the veteran for the CDF to make a claim on their behalf is very important. We have certainly been assured that this is the case. I can see circumstances, particularly in the area of catastrophic injury, where this could facilitate a speedy claims process in which an ADF member is able to get very timely acceptance of their claim.

The second schedule would align the information-obtaining powers under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act with the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, enabling the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to request information from third parties and impose penalties if it is delayed. This is important because, under these changes, if the commission requires information from, for example, a bank which a client can no longer access, this provision would enable the commission to request this information directly from the bank. Labor is supportive of this measure because we believe it will improve the timeliness of claims. Often, if a client, a veteran, cannot get information from the relevant third party, then their claim is held up. Of course, that is not the fault of the veteran and it is not the fault of the Department of Veterans' Affairs but it has an impact nonetheless. So anything which, as I said, improves or streamlines the claims process—that is not a detriment to the veteran, that can ensure that a claim is either accepted or that incapacity payments or other such payments can be assessed in a timely manner—is critically important.

The final schedule in this bill will ensure that lump sum determinations made by the Department of Social Services will apply as exempt lump sums for income tests for DVA income support clients, where the determination is consistent with DVA legislation and policies. As a good example, this looks at such payments that veterans may receive under the new National Redress Scheme or under drought assistance payments. Currently, if a new lump sum payment like drought assistance comes online and the Department of Social Services lodges an instrument to exempt it from income testing, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is required to implement a separate yet identical instrument to the parliament to exempt the lump sum payment from income testing for DVA clients. This change makes sense and ensures that there are no administrative errors that would lead to Department of Veterans' Affairs clients not being exempt. This will automatically connect that exemption to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and will mean that only one instrument will need to be lodged—by the Department of Social Services. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will be able to make exemptions where appropriate, but veterans will not have to wait for DVA to lodge an instrument to gain the benefit of an exemption.

I think it's important to recognise the point that I just made—that this will not exclude the Department of Veterans' Affairs from making its own exemptions. There could well be circumstances that are unique to veterans when it comes to lump sum payments, and those lump sum payments should rightly be exempt from income support payments such as the service pension. Therefore it is important that the Department of Veterans' Affairs still have the ability to introduce an instrument that would make those exemptions; this just makes sense when it comes to more general exemptions that are applicable to both the Department of Social Services and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is a pretty logical change and it probably doesn't have much practical effect except to perhaps reduce the need to introduce an identical instrument into the parliament and probably to alleviate any confusion—not that there have been any examples of that confusion, but there may be in the future. Given that those changes are pretty logical, we support the bill.

We do think that we must continually be working to send a clear message to our veterans that we value their service and that we are on their side. Anything that seeks to improve the processes within the Department of Veterans' Affairs, even if they be small and practical processes, is an important part of sending the message: we value the service that you've given to the country and we continue to value it. That is an important message that the parliament can give and indeed the community can give when it comes to valuing our veterans, and that is partly why Labor, from opposition—though we understand the government has some intent to do this—wants to see the signing of a military covenant if elected. We envisage that a covenant would formalise and make explicit that promise that I was talking about, a promise that's long been implicit—the commitment that we will look after those who are serving or have served and their loved ones. Our serving men and women deserve to know in no uncertain terms that we value their service and will look after them.

Labor has announced that we will work with the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and ex-service organisations to develop relevant wording for the covenant, based on the United Kingdom model, that will be signed by the Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister of the day. As I said, similar to the nature of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces Covenant, our military covenant will be accompanied by legislation which will ensure regular reporting to the parliament on how we are meeting our commitment to those who have served. The accompanying legislation is an important component as it introduces an accountability measure that is critical for this parliament and subsequent parliaments to have. It provides an opportunity to reflect on a regular basis on the range of services and supports available and whether we are meeting expectations but also, importantly, to identify emerging issues for our veterans community that may not have been present or may not have been as critical five, 10 or 20 years ago. While a covenant won't address all the issues, it will act as a guiding principle, and accompanying legislation will add, as I said, to the important accountability measure. Members of the ex-service community have been calling for a covenant for some time, and they have that support from Labor.

As I said at the beginning, we do support this bill. Any steps to ensure that veterans have a smooth and streamlined process, where they get the support they need and when they need it, is critical to ensuring that we send the message, 'We value your service, we continue to value your service and we will continue to support you in the years to come.' I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context