Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The introduction of this bill, the Veterans Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, comes at a pivotal moment, particularly in light of the royal commission report into veteran suicide. Since 1985, we have lost at least 2,000 veterans to suicide, a tragic reflection of profound gaps in our support systems for veterans in Australia. These losses aren't just statistics. Each veteran lost to suicide leaves behind grieving families, friends and a community struggling with the weight of that loss. The burden of this crisis spans for generations and, as it stands, much of the heavy lifting is being done by the community, filling the void where government systems have failed.

I remember very vividly going to the front of Parliament House earlier this year when the report into veteran suicide was released and speaking to family members and standing outside a shrine to those who had passed away through suicide, those veterans who proudly served Australia. It was heartbreaking. What their family members asked was for this parliament and our community to do better.

We have seen extreme examples of the harm caused by our current system. Some of these stories were shared with us in the parliament in September, but they were not isolated incidents. They highlighted how deeply inadequate the support structure is for veterans. Administrative issues may appear small in the scheme of things but can further compound difficulties in accessing support or discourage seeking help at all.

I'm pleased to see that this bill seeks to simplify legislation governing veterans' entitlements.

For too long veterans have been navigating a confusing and inequitable system of overlapping legislation. The existing system comprises three different acts that determine veteran entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation arrangements, often creating confusion and leading to different levels of and eligibility for supports for individuals based on factors like age or where an injury occurred. It is a labyrinth. At least three public reports, including the Productivity Commission review in 2019, as well as the more recent Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide highlighted how this structure is contributing to delays, inequity and a lack of clarity for those seeking help. This bill will consolidate acts into the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, MRCA, which should reduce some of that complexity. While this bill streamlines some of the inconsistency, it won't fix all the complexity. Many of the Senate inquiry submissions have pointed out that, although consolidating legislation is a good first step, it doesn't address the issues of complexity that exist within an amalgamated MRCA. The message to us is this is a good first step but not the end of the road.

I'd like to talk about veterans' families because this bill will affect veterans' families, and veterans families are such an important part of our veterans' community. They are integral to the conversation yet the support system often fails to adequately recognise the roles that they play. I sat through and helped organise a workshop with veterans' families as well as current serving members families, and the feedback that I got loud and clear was that we are neither serving veterans nor current veteran members' families adequately, and the lack of service is inhibiting our ability to hold on to members of the defence forces. As one young woman said to me, 'If you can't make it work for me and my family then, ultimately, it won't work for my husband,' who, in this case, was a member of the defence forces. We do not and have not had enough focus on the needs of families of our defence personnel and families of veterans. I think this bill to a degree addresses this but there is much further to go.

I have been contacted specifically in relation to this bill by veterans' families, as well as by advocacy groups representing veterans' families, who saw the bill is a rare opportunity to update language they felt was no longer aligned with the modern values and realities of caregiving in many of these families. After all, the MRCA was initially drafted more than 20 years ago, in 2004. The Australian War Widows and the Families of Veterans Guild pointed out in their Senate submissions the term 'wholly dependent partner' used to describe the partner of a deceased veteran is outdated. It fails to capture the complex, often interdependent, relationships that exist in veterans' families, and devalues the role that families play. Australian War Widows notes that is no longer appropriate since most partners and widows work during their marriages on top of fulfilling roles that include home duties. In fact, according to the 2019 census, 79 per cent of partners of ADF personnel are working. These organisations wrote to the minister to outline their concerns with this terminology and to propose alternative language such as 'bereaved partner' where this clause applies. It was suggested to have no impact on the definition or eligibility but better reflected the reality of families today.

Legacy Australia noted similar concerns in their submission. I understand that updates to language can have broad implications and cannot be considered lightly but this is more than semantics; this is about updating terminology to better reflect and include the nuanced and complex roles that families play in supporting veterans. This is about moving away from language that stereotypes the partners of veterans, 80 per cent of whom are women. I am aware of procedures in place within the veteran community to discuss this language and I am pleased that these conversations have been tabled for discussion. While the debate on this bill may not be the time to press the matter, I would urge the minister to make these changes central to the next stage of amendments to this legislation.

I'd now like to turn to a constituent issue which relates to this, because it really talks about another issue—language that is out of step. I have a constituent, Major Caitlin Pedel, who has proudly served Australia for 17 years. In 2022, Major Pedel was posted to the United States, during which time she gave birth. As a direct result of her overseas posting, Major Pedel understood that she would fail the residency test for parental leave, as she had been outside of Australia for more than 56 weeks. Major Pedel was wrongfully under the impression that she would protected under section 46(4) of the Paid Parental Leave Act that allows the 56-week period to be extended in circumstances where a member of the defence forces is deployed outside Australia. Services Australia rejected her claim, noting that she was 'posted' and not 'deployed', even though Major Pedel points out pregnant women are prohibited from being deployed on operational deployments.

The way I see it is that either Services Australia's interpretation of the law is incorrect or this exemption is, in practice, only available to men. To add insult to injury, Major Pedel successfully appealed this decision at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Yet, as it stands, Services Australia is seeking to have this appeal overturned. I find it frankly outrageous that Services Australia would waste public resources in the pointless pursuit of a stringent interpretation of a ridiculous law that does not reflect the reality of families. If this government is serious about equal opportunity and protections for women in the Defence Force, it will stop the legal proceedings immediately and update this legislation to remove all ambiguity surrounding this case.

This bill is an important step, but, as I've outlined today, there are at least three reasons why there need to be strong, urgent and systemic changes across not only the veteran support system but the broader defence sector. One of the most crucial recommendations from the royal commission is recommendation 122, which calls for the establishment of a new statutory entity to oversee reform across the entire defence ecosystem. The new statutory entity is needed to provide independent oversight and evidence based advice to drive system reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members and their families. It is absolutely critical. While I understand the reviewing and consulting on all 122 recommendations of the royal commission will be involved, I believe there is a strong case for expediting this recommendation in particular, because, when I speak to veterans and their families in my electorate of Wentworth, what they're asking for is not more delays or half measures. They're asking for urgent systemic change. I believe external oversight and accountability are essential if we are to deliver the kind of reform that will truly make a difference.

See this speech in context