Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I hear some interjections over there, but I don't think that can be denied. There has also been no continuation of the veteran wellbeing centres and the veterans and families hubs that were established under the coalition government.

I think we also need to look at some of the responses to this legislation from industry and from various veterans groups. The member for New England commended the bill but said:

The three acts, as they become more aligned, we hope will remove the confusions and the frustration people have in wanting to get something resolved, dealing with the department and then just waiting in perpetuity for some outcome.

In his speech, the member for New England emphasised the importance of the Senate committee inquiry into the bill and the need for the inquiry to make time to hear from those in regional areas in particular.

If we start to look at some of the positions of other major interest groups, the Department of Veterans' Affairs published a legislation reform process and also anonymised many of its submissions. The Returned & Services League of Australia, the RSL, in their submission to the inquiry, were broadly supportive of the proposed reforms, but they raised some specific issues of concern, such as there being no definition of 'veteran' included, despite the suggestion on the Department of Veterans' Affairs website that it should be included. They also said that there's a lack of clarity as to whether new claims could be made for the veterans home care program by those ineligible for other home and household service programs, and that the way the overall impairments are measured under other legislation seems to make it harder for some veterans currently covered by the legislation, in terms of compensation, following a deterioration of their original condition.

As I said, the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia agreed with the concept of the bill and its main thrust. However, the submission noted that the association does not agree that there is any significant simplification in the ongoing compensation legislation, so there are concerns around this legislation. The Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia issued a newsletter in July 2024 and said that, in the federation's submission on the exposure draft of the bill, they were broadly supportive of the proposed reforms but raised some concerns with specific elements of the bill, including how statements of principle are applied.

The Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association was critical of the legislation. They said it remains far too complex. Legacy Australia outlined a number of measures it supported but then raised concerns with some aspects and made suggestions for improvements. Particularly, Legacy raised concerns over the use of the term 'wholly dependent partner' and with eligibility for some of the compensation provisions being based on whether a person was economically dependent on the veteran prior to the veteran's death.

The TPI Federation of Australia, which is the organisation for the totally and permanently incapacitated, represents a group of veterans in receipt of the special rate of disability compensation under the Veterans' Entitlement Act and their families. They were very critical of many aspects of the proposed reform, saying:

… the proposed changes to the legislation actually is not intended to alleviate suicidal ideation but rather tries to address issues that the Government and the Bureaucracy has with the legislation. This 'Simplification' is for the purpose of administration and not for the benefit of the Veterans and their families.

Defence Families of Australia said that, while the changes that have been made are late, they may assist in simplifying an unnecessarily complex legislative framework, but they were critical of many of the changes that are supposed to protect and uphold the entitlements and dignity of veterans and their families.

I also want to note the comments of one of my constituents, Gwen Cherne, the Veteran Family Advocate Commissioner. She made a submission to the Senate committee inquiry and raised some concerns with the bill. In relation to use of the term 'wholly dependent partner', she suggested 'bereaved family member' would be clearer and more inclusive. She said the bill didn't completely address funereal inequities, and she was advocating for more support, such as a gold card to carers of veterans, before the veteran dies.

I also want to mention Australian War Widows. I've launched functions for them. They raised a concern about the use of the term 'wholly dependent partner'. And I want to mention one of my other constituents, Bree Till, who has set up a group called the CIPHER Foundation. CIPHER stands for collaborative, integrative, peer-centric healing, education and research. Bree's husband was killed overseas, while she was pregnant with her son, so Bree has been a fierce advocate for veterans' families and particularly for veterans' children in circumstances where those veterans have died in service.

To conclude, the legislation as such is supported. However, there are significant changes that I think the government should take on board. (Time expired)

See this speech in context