Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006. Labor supports the bill. The bill contains a number of changes that will help improve administrative procedures within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, focusing particularly on the procedures of the Repatriation Medical Authority in relation to their review of statements of principles. This will be a positive aspect for veterans who seek to have decisions reviewed, as it should reduce the time taken for the review. The bill also corrects a technical fault in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act that did not authorise use of funds from the consolidated revenue fund to pay for certain benefits and allowances. It also corrects a number of minor anomalies in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. These minor corrections, as a whole, will be positive for the veteran community. I would now like to address these changes before I focus on some problems that I feel the government could have addressed with this bill.

The first schedule of the bill makes amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to provide for the review of a single factor or multiple factors within a statement of principles by the Repatriation Medical Authority rather than the entire contents of the SOP. The Repatriation Medical Authority is the body of medical and scientific experts that formulate statements of principles. These principles are used in determining issues of medical causation for claims for compensation and treatment under VEA. Currently, the VEA allows for the Repatriation Commission, veterans, their dependants or relevant organisations to request the RMA to review a SOP. Upon this request, the RMA must review the medical and scientific evidence in relation to the entire SOP, even when the request for review only concerns one or several factors. The amendments in this schedule will allow for the RMA to only review the relevant factors in these cases. Hopefully these amendments will therefore lead to a decrease in the time spent reviewing SOPs by the RMA. These amendments will also apply to the Specialist Medical Review Council, which is the appeal body to the RMA.

Schedule 2 of the bill makes a slightly technical amendment to the VEA which will provide authorisation for the appropriation of funds from the consolidated revenue fund for the payment of all benefits and allowances. The ANAO Audit report No. 15 of 2006-07 entitled Audits of the financial statements of Australian government entities for the period ended 30 June 2006 noted that:

During the 2005-06 financial year, DVA obtained legal advice that the services provided for British pensioners and other Dominion veterans are not covered by appropriation provided under Section 199 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1996 (VEA), as British, Commonwealth and Allied (BCAL) veterans are not veterans for the purposes of the VEA. Consequently, these payments represent a contravention of section 83 of the Constitution and section 48 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA).

As DVA has breached section 83 of the Constitution in making payments without valid appropriation support, a modified audit opinion with other statutory matters was issued outlining the background of this breach and the action in hand by DVA to regularise these payments without appropriation support.

This amendment will help to address this small technical problem.

The amendments contained within schedule 3 will clarify existing policy in relation to income stream rules. They also include consequential amendments, in response to changes in the family law, to allow the means test to be applied to certain non-superannuation annuities that are split pursuant to a divorce property settlement.

Schedule 4 of the bill makes a number of amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. Under the current act, the Repatriation Commission cannot accept liability for any injury that was intentionally self-inflicted. This amendment expands the definition of ‘injury’ to also include disease. This was the case under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act that covered these areas, and it is a minor technical amendment.

The bill also includes amendments that will provide for service personnel incapacitated by injury or disease while they are undergoing their initial training. These amendments will provide that all members and former members who are injured or contract a disease while undergoing initial training and who did not attain their final Defence Force income will be paid at the same progression rate as his or her classmates during the training period until completion of that training.

The member or former member will then be deemed to have graduated from the initial training at the same time as his or her classmates. Once the person is deemed to have graduated, their normal earnings will be calculated against the rank and employment category that the relevant service chief advises that the person would have held on completion of the initial training program. This is a positive change that corrects a current inequity. Labor fully supports this change.

The payment of a special rate disability pension under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act currently ceases at age 65 or after 104 weeks for people aged 63 or over. This amendment will remove those limits. The government has stated in its explanatory memorandum that this amendment was warranted because it was always intended that payment of the SRDP would be for life, consistent with payments of the special rate pension under the VEA. Labor fully supports this amendment. However, I do question whether the government really did always intend the payment to be for life or if this is more the result of effective lobbying by the ex-service community. Whatever the reason, this amendment is very welcome.

The amendments to section 327 provide that a determination by the commission concerning the appropriate treatment path is only required where the person is entitled to treatment under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and no determination is required if the person meets the criteria for treatment for all conditions. These are minor technical amendments.

Finally, the bill allows for the payment of travel expenses to the Veterans Review Board for those under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This brings that act into line with the VEA. I congratulate the government on this amendment which, again, I believe has come about after lobbying from the veteran community.

As a whole, this bill contains a series of minor amendments. However, some of these amendments will make a real difference for members of the veteran and ex-service community. Labor particularly welcomes the removal of the age 65 limit for the payment of the special rate disability pension, provision of travel expenses to attend hearings of the Veterans Review Board in relation to appeals under the MRCA, and the reforms to incapacity payments for those members injured in their initial training. I therefore congratulate the government and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on these amendments.

However, as I foreshadowed earlier, it is disappointing that a bill that aims to improve administrative procedures does not do more to address some current problems within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I am primarily concerned with two aspects: firstly, the time taken to process claims; and, secondly, the large claims backlog that currently exists within the department.

Firstly, with regard to the time taken to address claims, the annual report of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs revealed a dramatic increase in the time it takes to process veterans’ claims, particularly those relating to injury. The time taken to process a primary compensation claim under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act is reported as 106 days, while the target is 75 days. This is a 40 per cent increase over target time. The mean time taken to process primary injury claims under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act ballooned from 122 days in 2004-05 to 181 days in 2005-06. That is a 48 per cent increase since 2004-05. The mean time taken to process primary injury claims under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has blown out from 90 days to 146 days. That is up 62 per cent since 2004-05. Finally, the time taken to process new impairment claims under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has dramatically ballooned from 26 days to 130 days. That is up 400 per cent since 2004-05.

Secondly, with regard to the large backlog of claims that exists within the department, in an answer to questions at the last estimates round, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs revealed that 4,570 claims have exceeded the average time taken to process a claim. The backlog included 2,583 claims for disability pension, 956 claims for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and 545 claims for compensation under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This is completely unacceptable.

What worries me is that, at the same time claims processing times have blown out and a backlog continues to grow, the department has revealed that it has been forced over the last two financial years to implement a net national reduction of 12.5 per cent in staff allocated to compensation claims processing under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act in order to meet the government’s budget allocations. There was also a reduction in resourcing provided to these areas.

The minister should not be cutting staff or resources to his department when they are failing to meet their current obligations. I understand that the demography of the veteran population is changing and in time that will mean that less money will be required to run the department. However, if the minister thinks it is appropriate to cut staff and resources at a time when some claims have blown out in processing time by up to 400 per cent and there is a backlog of 4,570 claims, he is sorely mistaken. Until the minister can get the department’s workload under control there should be no further cuts.

The problem with this area is that you are dealing with people who often have severe mental or physical issues. They are not well and are at their most vulnerable. This is a very difficult time for a veteran. To be in a situation where the time lines are blowing out adds to the pressure on the veteran. We are talking about people who served our country, and they deserve much better service than they are currently getting from the Howard government. These problems exist in more than the statistics and figures that I have recited today. Hardly a week goes by when my office does not hear of a story in regard to the hardships that veterans are forced to face while they wait for the bureaucracy to process their claims. Often these veterans are seriously inconvenienced financially and in the more tragic circumstances some see a worsening of their condition as their stress grows.

One of these cases that my office came across concerned a veteran who had to wait for over a year for a response to a letter he had written asking for a review of a determination made by the department. Sadly, when the response finally came it was to tell him that his claim had been passed on to another part of the department. I can only imagine the stress and inconvenience this has caused the person in question and his family. I have already informed the minister that Labor will be pursuing this issue at estimates.

With regard to the blow-outs in processing time and the massive backlogs, I would urge the minister to go further than these few minor administrative changes and begin to address the problems in his department relating to claims processing. As to the amendments and changes that are included under this bill, Labor fully supports them and I wish them a speedy passage through the other place.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Allow me to take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker Secker, to congratulate you on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker and to be able to address the chamber during your maiden appearance as Deputy Speaker in the Main Committee. Your elevation of course is a tribute to your experience in and contribution to the parliament, and I know that the rulings we will get from you will be entirely straight down the line and fair, as one would expect from such an open-minded individual who will very carefully observe the standing orders of the parliament.

I am pleased to participate in the discussion on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006. I listened very carefully to the honourable member who just concluded his contribution, the shadow minister, and I certainly would not support any delay in processing of applications for veterans. I think that, given the stage of life that many of our veterans are currently at, they are entitled to an expeditious resolution of a claim that may be made under the veterans’ entitlements legislation. I would be concerned if that were not happening. I would hope that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in his summing up would be able to advise the parliament what is in fact the situation because I must say that in my own office I have not had the experience that the member opposite has had with respect to delays in dealing with applications for entitlements by veterans. I would have thought that if there was an endemic problem I would have been aware of it, given the fact that in my electorate of Fisher, based on the Sunshine Coast, we have some 10,000 veterans and I regularly interact with the veteran community.

While I am not saying that there are not complaints about the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, I have to say that our local office seems to be well regarded by the veteran community and appears to be delivering on what needs to be done. Therefore, I was concerned to hear the comments made by the honourable member who spoke previously, and I want to state to the House that, while we do get complaints in relation to veterans’ entitlements, I am certainly not aware of what appears to be, according to the honourable member, an endemic problem with the processing of applications resulting in quite extraordinary and unacceptable delays. I think it should be a bipartisan matter in this parliament that we all recognise that members of our veteran community are entitled to the greatest recognition that a grateful society is able to afford. After all, the ex-service men and women of Australia, particularly the returned service men and women, are people who risked everything in times of conflict to ensure that as a nation we continue to enjoy the freedom, the stability and way of life that we have which has made us the envy of people around the world.

I am pleased to be able to support this legislation, which introduces a number of changes to the various pieces of legislation that govern the allocation and distribution of pensions to returned service men and women. These changes are regarded as relatively minor. I am pleased that they enjoy the support of the opposition in addition to the support of the government. Although these changes are minor, they will help to streamline the administration of government pensions for veterans, they will correct anomalies and oversights in the legislation and also clarify some of the more complicated elements of the legislation.

Our veterans are held in high regard for their service to this country and their willingness to give up so much to secure our wonderful lifestyle. As the member for an area with 10,000 veterans, as one would imagine, I do get many opportunities to interact with the ex-service community. Only last Saturday, in fact, I attended the 76th anniversary reunion luncheon of the RSL sub-branch at Maleny in the Sunshine Coast hinterland. That was a wonderful event, with about 170 veterans and their wives or partners—or husbands as the case may be—present, representing a whole range of sub-branches of the Returned and Services League right across the Sunshine Coast area. It is a wonderful chance for people to get together to exchange experiences, to talk about problems and to, in effect, reinforce the wonderful values that the Returned and Services League has represented during the very many years of its existence.

I would like to commend Captain Paul Gilmore-Walsh and his wife, Mrs Helen Gilmore-Walsh, for the role that they have played in the RSL on the Sunshine Coast. In particular, I refer to Captain Gilmore-Walsh’s role in setting up the Sunshine Coast district of the RSL. While not all sub-branches on the Sunshine Coast have as yet elected to join that district, some having chosen to remain part of the south-eastern district of the RSL, there is a wonderful sense of fellowship. Captain Paul Gilmore-Walsh was the inaugural president of the Sunshine Coast district of the RSL and he has now progressed to become a state vice-president of the RSL. Mrs Helen Gilmore-Walsh is the president of the local Maleny RSL sub-branch. They, along with all of the people they work with, make the lives of our veterans so much easier. They make sure that our community appreciates how valued they are. Of course, they also help to ensure that the entire community holds veterans up as the role models that they are, particularly for young Australians. This brings me to the fact that the Maleny naval cadets were also present at that event and they were recognised by their seniors.

This legislation is non-controversial. Even the shadow minister, who spoke on behalf of the opposition, could not find it in his heart to criticise the legislation, except to say, as is his wont, that the legislation perhaps did not go as far as he would like it to go. This is important legislation. I am pleased that it is being supported by the opposition. I am not suggesting that it will fix every problem that members of the ex-service community have, but it certainly will improve the lot of our veterans, and it is legislation that I am particularly pleased to be able to commend to the House.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006 contains a number of changes that will help improve administrative procedures within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs focusing particularly on the procedures of the RMA, the Repatriation Medical Authority, in relation to their review of statements of principles. Statements of principles outline factors considered to be the causes of certain diseases, illnesses and injuries—this is according to the schedule that we are dealing with. SOPs are used to determine issues of causation in relation to claims for the acceptance of injury, disease or death as being service related. They are based on specific evidence derived from medical literature and other research findings. Importantly, the SOPs identify factors that must exist to cause a particular disease, injury or death.

With those things in mind, I want to turn to a letter I have received from the Vietnam Veterans Federation where they talk about the Vietnam veterans’ health study and they say ‘results even worse than expected’. This was released on 5 September 2006. There were three studies on the death rates and cancer incidence amongst Vietnam veterans. The first was the third Australian Vietnam Veteran Mortality Study 2005, the second was the Cancer Incidence in Australian Vietnam Veterans Study 2005 and the third was the Australian National Service Vietnam Veterans: Mortality and Cancer Incidence of 2005. The Vietnam Veterans Federation say this—and I want to quote them:

In the first two studies, the mortality (death rate) and cancer incidence among Vietnam veterans was compared to the death rate and cancer incidence of the same aged male Australian population.

But just how useful are comparisons between Vietnam veterans and the general population? It must be remembered that of those called up for National Service, 50% were rejected on medical or psychological grounds. Those applying to enlist in the regular forces had to satisfy similar high medical and psychological standards. This meant that the health of the group who served in Vietnam was of a very high order indeed, much higher than the same aged male Australian population. All things being equal, Vietnam veterans would now be expected to have a markedly lower death rate and less cancer than their equivalents in the general community. So comparing Vietnam veterans’ death rate and cancer incidence with the general community will lead to some very misleading results; results that hide the real damage that fighting the war may have done to veterans’ health.

I think that these are things that the RMA in considering SOPs must be aware of. The Vietnam Veterans Federation goes on to say this:

The third study compared the death rate and cancer incidence among National Servicemen who served in Vietnam with those National Servicemen who stayed in Australia. These two groups, on enlistment, enjoyed exactly the same standard of health. All things being equal, these two groups would now continue to exhibit a similar standard of health. But, of course, all things were not equal; one group served in Vietnam and the other did not. And this study, unlike the other two, is able to show just what a difference that service in Vietnam has made to the health of those who fought the war there.

In other words, the Australian National Service Vietnam Veterans: Mortality and Cancer Incidence 2005 is the only one of the three studies whose results do not hide the damage done to Vietnam veterans by their war service

And that damage is substantial. The death rate and cancer incidence for National Service Vietnam veterans are alarmingly worse than those of National Servicemen who did not serve in Vietnam.

Here are the key findings of the Australian National Service Vietnam Veterans: Mortality and Cancer Incidence 2005:

1. National Service veterans experienced a 23 5 higher death rate than those National Servicemen who did not serve in Vietnam.

2. Specific causes of death that were significantly higher among National Service Vietnam veterans include death from digestive system diseases, lung and pancreatic cancer. Notably there was a higher rate of suicide and motor vehicle accidents (the latter often a matter of suicide).

3. National Service Vietnam veterans had a significant 14 5 elevation in the rate of cancer, especially cancer of the lung, head, neck and pancreas.

4. There were no causes of death analysed for which National Service Vietnam veterans had a statistically significant lower death rate than National Servicemen who did not serve in Vietnam.

As we have said, this study clearly shows that fighting the war in Vietnam had a dramatically adverse effect on the health of those who fought it. The federation goes on to say:

And this, of course, is the real issue. How badly did fighting the war in Vietnam effect the health of those who fought it? What stunting of potential health, longevity, prosperity and happiness did the war cause its participants and their families. The National Service study shows just how much potential has sadly been lost. And one can imagine what anxiety and grief this ill-health has caused the families. Of course, these are the issues the government wants to avoid because it is the loss of this potential and the accompanying family grief that so strongly begs compensating.

It may have been for this reason that the Minister, in his television interviews and press release, started off with the reassuring news that the death rate of Vietnam veterans was even a bit lower than the general population (without adding that, but for the war, it would be very much lower) and seemed delighted that the suicide rate of Vietnam veterans is much the same as the general population (without adding that, but for the war, it would be dramatically lower).

Admittedly, the Minister mentioned that cancer rates amongst Vietnam veterans were higher than the general community, but failed to say how astonishing this was considering they would be expected, but for the war, to be lower.

But the Minister certainly didn’t lead his press release or his television interviews with the most important and revealing finding of all three studies; the startling news that the death rate of National Service Vietnam veterans was 23 % higher than that of National Servicemen who stayed in Australia. Indeed, the Minister did not even mention this statistic.

In other words, the Minister’s statements on television and in his press release were misleading, leaving the uninformed public believing that things weren’t too bad really.

That the Minister and the government would avoid the real issue, revealed so dramatically by the National Service study, does not surprise us. They have avoided and continue to avoid facing a number of Repatriation injustices that scream for redress.

It is interesting that the previous government speaker got up and said, ‘Well, everything is fine within the veteran community. The opposition could not find anything to criticise the government about in this bill.’ There are things in this bill that we support. The shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, Alan Griffin, is doing a fabulous job, I reckon, around the place. He is being widely recognised for the work that he is doing and for the fact that he is out there talking to and, above all, listening to the veteran community. That is important. It is just a bit bland for the government spokesperson to get up and say, ‘Things are pretty good within the veteran community.’

There are a number of issues that, as a nation, we need to address. The shadow minister, for instance, has been giving coverage of late to the long delays that are occurring with the processing of claims. This in itself is a major problem and it is a major problem that the government ought to be able to fix. Surely it is a matter of allocating the appropriate resources to ensure that veterans and their families do not face these undue delays in having their claims processed. There is a backlog; it needs to be shifted.

The other thing that the member who spoke previously referred to—and this is something that the government are good at quoting—was the high respect they have for people who serve in the ADF and people who have served in the ADF. I suspect that they are quite genuine in their views and in their admiration, but you have to go a bit deeper than that. As this survey has shown, national service veterans past and present who served in Vietnam experience a 23 per cent higher death rate than those national servicemen who did not. This is an appalling statistic. We as a nation, including the government, must bend over backwards to do what we can to rectify those problems, to make sure that the RMA is doing its job and to make sure that the SOPs are correct. We also need to make sure that the resources that are required are in place to ensure that when veterans, including national servicemen, get crook, when they have health issues—mental health or stress or whatever—these issues are dealt with without delay instead of seeing this incredible backlog, which is detrimental to the veteran community generally. Having said those things, the opposition supports the bill.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset can I just say I am delighted as it is the first time I have been able to appear before you, Mr Deputy Speaker Secker, and I thought I would get in early in case there is a reason to rebuke me at a later point in my contribution.

I say to the member for Cowan that we on this side greatly respect the points he has just made. I am no longer a member of the executive, so I can be quite open and say I agree with the sentiment he has expressed about the ambition to make sure that those who need assistance get it, that there is a timely approach to the processing of claims and that they are listened to. But I would hesitate automatically, and not just because he is in the chamber, because my good friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is setting a very high standard of interaction with our veteran community. He is a demonstration of this government’s commitment to listening to the veteran community and working with them to try to facilitate the best possible outcome in a personal sense for each and every one of our veterans.

I listened to what the member for Cowan said and he essentially could not disagree with the proposition I have just put to the chamber—that is, we have a very fine Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, and if the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs is doing a good job it is only because he is trying to reach the standard set by the member for Dunkley.

The government is working to streamline the system and to put a little more sense of understanding, and systemic support for that understanding, of individual needs through this bill, which is being agreed to by the opposition. To work with the RSL and to work with welfare officers, to work with those who work at the grassroots of our local community is very much at the heart of it. The key thing to remember is that government does so much. The system of veterans’ affairs—repatriation—that we have in this country is agreed to be the world’s best practice. I, for one, as a private member or as a member of the Howard government executive, have never been afraid to stand very strongly in favour of improving what is already a damn good system.

Having talked to local RSLs and to welfare officers at the various centres of great excellence in and around my electorate of Moreton—the people who work for the south-eastern districts, at Greenslopes hospital, and people who have worked with veterans from Vietnam and other conflicts—I can see just how far we have come from those early days post World War I when people like my great-grandfather came back. He fought in the battle of Polygon Wood in September 1917, an enormous shemozzle of a battle on the Western Front. He suffered trench fever; psychologically he was enormously damaged. Charlie McKinnon was his name. He served again in the Second World War, but I make the point that he was one of those veterans who came back completely traumatised by all that had happened to him, completely unsupported by the government of the day, until things such as the repatriation legislation, which we are attempting to amend today, came into effect and until the RSL commenced its work on behalf of veterans. Until the RSL and other organisations gave voice to their concerns, my great-grandfather was completely on his own. In fact, he ended up destroying his medals from World War I by chopping them up with an axe. I suspect that he was a committer of family violence as a result of the trauma and torment that he suffered during his service on behalf of Australia in the First World War. So I do understand, without having lived through it myself, fortunately.

When I was a kid and the Vietnam War was declared over, I breathed a sigh of relief because I was a few years too young to serve. I have an enormous personal understanding based on what my own grandfather, mother and others have told me about what went on in my family. I have an understanding about what the member for Cowan and others have said about the torment and hurt to people who have served. That is why this government is very determined, perhaps too slowly for some, to continue in a sensible, incremental way to listen to and work with the veterans in the returned service community to make sure that they are fully consulted so that these measures are progressing change and to make certain that this particular style of approach has occurred.

While acknowledging the government’s role, I want to take a few moments to acknowledge the role of people within my local community because I think it is important that we pay tribute to them. On Australia Day, apart from the four different Australian citizenship ceremonies that I conducted with the Lions Clubs of Moorooka, Griffith University and Brisbane Macgregor, and the Rotary Club of Archerfield, I also handed out my Moreton community service awards for the seventh year. Yet again, an enormous number of people from the veteran community featured. I want to tell the House a little bit about some of these local heroes and the difference they have made.

Lochie Anderson from Runcorn has worked for the past seven years as an advanced pension and welfare officer for veterans and pensioners through the RSL south-east districts at Greenslopes Private Hospital. He is highly regarded for his work by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Queensland Treatment Monitoring Committee. His dedication to this committee has in fact affected his own health on a number of occasions. He is a proud Vietnam veteran, but Lochie has put his own health concerns aside to advocate for the rights, ambitions and needs of other veterans. He is one of the people—and the minister is nodding—who are making a difference and the minister is listening to them, noting all the things that they do.

To talk about some of the great injustices that have existed in the system, Padre Roy Wakeling was in fact in Darwin when bombs were dropping but not for enough days to qualify for the full raft of metals which he should have received. I feel frustrated for Roy. Here we are 64 years after he served Australia in Darwin and he continues to offer pastoral care through Stephens sub-branch of the RSL and is highly respected. He is an older gentleman now, but he puts himself behind the needs of others.

Rob Ekeberg of Annerley has been active with Stephens sub-branch for over 40 years. He has been senior and junior vice-president for decades. He has been the organiser and president of the sub-branch sports club. He has brought together people who have been united by their sense of service for Australia in times of war to reminisce and remember, but also through being an active seller of Anzac Day and Remembrance Day badges he has raised enormous amounts of funds for the local RSL—enormous by their standards but small by the amount that is voted through the minister’s control to the work that the government does. Rob is a stalwart of Stephens RSL.

Ron Viles, from Salisbury, has been the secretary of the Stephens RSL sub-branch for the past three years. He has made sure that local schools have taken full advantage of the Australian government’s program of remembrance, through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. New shrines have been installed, including at Rocklea State School. That is a very small school, with only about 70 or 80 students, but Ron has made sure that they have not missed out on having a memorial for special days.

I also want to tell the House about Colin Jones of Parkinson. For 38 years, Colin has been a volunteer bugler at the Salisbury RSL sub-branch. He has done that since he was a teenager in the Boys Brigade—his mum roped him in—and Colin does the best last post I have heard anywhere. For 38 years he has been practising, and everyone stands a little straighter when he plays it.

These are people who make a difference in my local area and give a sense of dignity and a sense of commemoration to the local veterans. And they keep the pressure on me, as the local member, to make sure that we deliver things as well. Minister Billson is here; I have referred to him a few times. I was delighted to host him in the electorate of Moreton last year at the Carrington RSL home. He is very well aware of the work that is being done by Sunnybank RSL. Robert Lippiatt, who is the president there, is a younger bloke and he is bringing a lot of dynamic to that RSL. They have adopted 20 or more schools in the local area, and they have made sure that they have access to the DVA memorial money and so forth. They are building a new monument, because the Sunnybank event is attended by about 5,000 people on Anzac Day. It is huge. What Robert has done, which I think is great, is to ask Sunnybank High School to provide part of the infrastructure for seating so the local community can safely stand and remember on Anzac Day.

One of the great things that Robert has done, which is worth recording in this place, is to ensure that the next generation of Australians understand our obligations, as a parliament, as a government and as a nation, to our veteran community. He has involved students from St Thomas More Catholic College and Runcorn High School, to name just two, and he has encouraged kids to put an afternoon a week into a pastoral care program at local RSL war service homes. It means that young people have gone to those homes and they have dealt with the mortality issues—the reality of growing older. They have adopted veterans and the veterans have got to know them, and I think it has put a bit of extra arc and spark into the life of each of those veterans.

One of the things that I am ambitious to do, as the member for Moreton, is to make sure that those kids also get a training credential, an outcome, for the work they are doing, because they are actually doing the sort of work that you would need to do at a certificate I or II level in aged-care training. There is a bit of work to be done by Minister Robb and Minister Santoro to make that happen, and I am sure that Minister Billson would very much support me in my ambitions to recognise those kids.

I have taken time to acknowledge these local heroes because I think that, as local members, this day-to-day interaction and working with people makes us want to champion these good causes. As a member of a generation that was not required, because of some urgency or government direction, to put on a uniform and to stand the line in defence of freedom and democracy, I will continue to pledge myself to do all I can to make sure that those who have done so gain the respect and assistance they deserve. We have the sixth oldest continuous democracy in the world in this country. It would not be possible to make that claim if not for those who served. Whether those wars ever made sense at the time—or, in fact, since—I think we owe an enormous vote of thanks and gratitude to those people, and we need to put all the resources we possibly can towards the task of looking after those in need, because they have served this country. I commend this bill to the House.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Secker, may I add my congratulations on your elevation to a presiding role. I hope you enjoy having the opportunity to keep us all in line, consistent with the standing orders. It is a hearty moment when both sides of the House concur.

There seems to be concurrence on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006, although I will touch on some of the points of deviation that seem to have emerged in some of the commentary. I would like to acknowledge my friends and colleagues the members for Fisher and Moreton, and also the member for Bruce and the member for Cowan, for their contributions. The bill that we are discussing today is part of what I call the ‘everlasting march’. There is not the opportunity to rest on our laurels, as a nation or as a government, when it comes to the support we provide those who have served our nation. There is a constant challenge of evolution, of improvement and enhancement because the service of our men and women in the Australian defence forces, the challenges and the medical conditions and the support that our veterans deserve, constantly evolves. It is constantly changing and we need to change, adapt and evolve with it so that we maintain a well-earned and well-established international reputation as having the world’s best repatriation system.

The bill that is before the House is probably not the most significant legislative reform that the parliament will debate, but it is important in carrying forward that ongoing commitment to constantly improve, refine and finetune our systems as they support the serving men and women of the Australian defence forces and our veteran community.

This government and its predecessors over many years have developed a comprehensive repatriation system which recognises the very special standing and the special duty we have to care for, support and respond to the needs of our veteran community. The bill is yet another example of this government’s recognition of the need for improvements in the delivery of repatriation services to our veterans, their dependants and those men and women who continue to serve in Australia’s defence forces and who benefit from the support we provide through the legislative changes.

Our repatriation system provides a range of benefits to compensate veterans, serving members and their dependants for injury, disability or death resulting from that service. It is important to reflect on that transformation. One of the earlier speakers—I think it might have been one of the opposition speakers—rightly identified that the aggregate number of people in our veteran community is declining. Sadly, that is as a result of time taking its toll on primarily World War II veterans. Thank goodness we have not seen a mass mobilisation of the scale that was required to defend our nation and support our allies in World War II. That was a rather significant population hump in the veteran community and many are moving on to a more peaceful place because of their age.

Notwithstanding that, when the Howard government was elected, our Veterans’ Affairs budget was just a tad over $6 billion. Over time, and notwithstanding the declining number in our veteran community, today it is $10.8 billion. It is clearly evident, from that simple statistic alone, that our efforts to support the veteran community continue to evolve and that, far from taking the foot off the accelerator, we have actually expanded and increased the range of support to recognise the changing needs of an albeit declining number in the veteran community.

This bill is part of that ongoing journey. The changes made by this bill will improve the efficiency and the delivery of those benefits and other services that are provided to veterans, serving members and their dependants under both the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill enables the Repatriation Medical Authority to review one or a number of factors in a statement of principles rather than the entire contents of the statement of principles. Statements of principles are formulated by medical and scientific experts for use in the assessment of whether or not a claimed injury, disease or death is war or service related. That is important because, in addition to the benefits that veterans enjoy as citizens of Australia, there is another layer and a comprehensive range of support available because of their unique contribution to Australia, and that is delivered through the repatriation service.

To maintain the understanding within the community that that is not only appropriate but entirely justified and warranted, we need to ensure that we recognise that those additional benefits are available as a result of that link to the need for those benefits and to a person’s war or service experience. That is a key tenet that is captured in the statements of principles. Sadly, we all acquire illnesses, diseases and injury as a broader population. Which of those conditions, though, are likely to be as a consequence of our military service and our war service? That is what is captured in the statements of principles in order to give legitimacy and authority to that additional range of benefits that I have touched on.

Regular reviews are carried out of those statements of principles, based on the latest medical and scientific evidence. The amendments captured in this bill will enhance the review process, making it quicker and more properly focused—that is, if there is a new scientific or medical insight that is relevant to our statements of principles, we can target and embrace that new insight, adjust one or two factors which are relevant and make our statements of principles as contemporary and as well informed as possible without the need to entirely examine the complete statements of principles.

The bill also enhances the operations of rules on existing income streams and clarifies the policies relating to those income streams. The rule changes follow on from changes in the family law and allow the means test to be applied to certain non-superannuation annuities that are split following a divorce property settlement. Another minor change to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act will enable benefits and allowances, the rates or amounts of which are fixed by or calculated under the regulations or a legislative instrument, to be funded from the consolidated revenue fund.

The bill also corrects some minor errors and anomalies in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme. This scheme provides treatment, rehabilitation and compensation for all permanent and reserve members of the defence forces who suffer an injury or disease as a result of service after 30 June 2004. That is a new scheme that carries forward the best of the old schemes—and I will touch on that shortly. Benefits provided by the scheme match and, in many cases, enhance those provided under the previous arrangement—that being CERCA and the veterans’ entitlements system.

The anomalies being rectified by the bill include the removal of the age limit of 65 for the special rate disability pension, which is payable for life. The government’s intention was absolutely clear and always has been and it was unfortunate that the member for Bruce sought to cast some aspersion on what our motive was. The government’s position has always been clear: that those benefits should be payable for life, and the changes in this bill ensure the continued payment of the pension beyond age 65, which is consistent with payments of the special rate or TPI pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. That was always the government’s intention. It stated so. We are ensuring that there is no doubt about that in the legislation.

The bill also makes changes to correct the liability provisions by excluding the acceptance of any self-inflicted diseases. This brings the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in line with the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Thankfully, we do not have many examples—in fact none—of self-inflicted diseases resulting in claims for compensation. But that does ensure that that provision is available where, heaven forbid, such a behaviour occurs.

The bill also ensures that service personnel incapacitated by injury or disease during training are remunerated at levels commensurate with what they would have earned if they had completed their initial training. That is designed so that, if someone in training is injured and therefore not able to achieve the income they would have achieved had they completed their training, we will base our payments on their having completed their training, which they certainly would have done had they not been injured. That is the logic and policy imperative that sits behind that provision.

The bill also provides for the payment of travelling expenses for claimants attending a hearing by the Veterans’ Review Board—and I think that is a very positive step. Section 88A of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act is reopened for certain persons who are eligible under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This will enable those eligible persons to receive specified treatment of a kind determined by the Repatriation Commission. The bill clarifies, for the purposes of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, who may lodge a claim on behalf of a member or dependant who is under the age of 18—this is particularly relevant for our cadets—and removes the unnecessary requirement for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a treatment path for a serving member.

The proposed changes and minor technical amendments contained in the bill will enhance my department’s capacity to deliver benefits and entitlements for our veteran and Defence Force community. This bill further demonstrates this government’s ongoing commitment to this very deserving group of Australians.

Before I close, let me just touch on some of the remarks that were made by the opposition spokesperson. There is a very worrying but seemingly consistent trend of the opposition being in the mode of grievance peddling. It seems not to be able to come to terms with positive or constructive solutions or suggestions about how to improve our repatriation system. That is solely the work of the government and government members. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might recall the Clarke review—a very comprehensive review looking at anomalies and suggestions for improving our system. There is not one sitting ALP member in this parliament who actually made a submission to that review. Thankfully, about six current Liberal and National members of parliament brought forward submissions to that review showing a freshness and an idea driven approach to repatriation services, rather than sitting back and seemingly endlessly carping over individual cases and then trying to argue that an individual case is representative of the broader system.

The opposition spokesman touched on one case. If it is the case I believe he is talking about, that matter was very quickly resolved upon it being known that the delay had occurred. My department recognised that a document was put in a wrong file and quickly identified that a mistake had been made, quickly apologised for that mistake and remedied the matter. The opposition would have you believe that that isolated incident represents the general experience of veterans, and it is simply not the case. The opposition seem to be looking at a complex, comprehensive system through a straw. They will look through the straw and see one particular example of the more than 30,000 claims that we receive a year—admittedly, a decline from around the 50,000 claims a year that were received some years ago—and say, ‘Look, there is this one case, this one anomaly, this one example, where an error has been made,’ and then try to make that out to be the case for all of the claims being processed by my department. It is simply unfair, unrepresentative and completely unhelpful.

My department is staffed by very dedicated, skilled and experienced people. In fact, I think those in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, on average, have the longest period of employment within a Commonwealth department, so committed are they to their work. That is an example where the opposition are not only letting themselves down; they are letting the veteran community down. Thankfully, there is much energy and much vigour within the government to ensure that our systems continue to evolve and improve.

Let me touch on an example. The opposition has been making much about claims processing times, arguing that there is some administrative malfunction or something going on and then drawing out selectively some material to evidence that case. In his contribution, the opposition spokesman again did this. One of his favourite examples is to be critical of the time taken for claims determined under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme. He says they have blown out by 400 per cent, but he does not mention the fact that only two cases were determined in the first year of the system—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to ask a question of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, will you allow a question?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure it is just designed to stump my momentum, but I am happy to field any questions.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was carefully listening to the minister and his comments about the motivation of government members and I was wondering, given that six had made submissions to the Clarke review, what his views were about the majority of government members who failed to make a submission. Does he feel that they are not interested in issues of repatriation or not capable of coming up with good suggestions?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a gripping question from the opposition. It is good to see they have workshopped something of that kind. The simple fact is there were six who came forward with constructive suggestions, compared to zero sitting ALP members. Those figures are quite evident. I encourage members to embrace the proactivity of the six who did. It is a very good example about how a local representative can draw from a broad range of experience and provide some useful input, and I encourage my colleagues to embrace that kind of approach.

Focusing solely on the time taken to process a claim for compensation can be and is misleading. My department concentrates not only on the timeliness of our decisions but also on the quality of them to ensure that there is consistent, legitimate decision-making across what is a very comprehensive system that can be quite complex. Nevertheless, it is our goal to constantly improve the timeliness and the quality of those decisions, and a number of measures have already been taken to embrace that ethos since my appointment as minister.

I was asked a question before by the opposition in relation to my earlier comments. It is simply ridiculous to draw a conclusion about turnover performance in a claims area for a new system that has been introduced for the first time where, in its first year, two claims were determined to establish the benchmark against which full-year operation statistics are compared. Most people would realise that that is simply nonsense. As the claims numbers have increased through the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act pathway, so have the department’s resources. Those resources have expanded to accommodate and address the processing load that is coming through those various systems. I would encourage the opposition spokesperson to actually come to grips with these issues. Another area that he draws on relates to claims under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the minister.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister take a question?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure, as long as he is quick.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The chair will decide those issues.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very quick. You spoke earlier about the issue of submissions to the Clarke review. Can you explain to the Main Committee why in fact in the Clarke review submission you suggested a certain set of actions regarding the treatment of nuclear veterans and then as minister you ignored it?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the opposition spokesman. He is keen to quote that almost as a defence for not having put a submission in himself. In relation to nuclear veterans, my concern was for their health. I was completely motivated by that. This government has implemented yet another initiative—a comprehensive program to support the health of not only veterans but also civilians involved in the nuclear testing. His argument would be whether the pathway we have chosen was appropriate compared to what I had proposed at that time.

If he would check the Hansard record, he would see that I have explained what my motives were. They were very clear. Moreover, not only did I recognise that action needed to be taken but also action has been taken on an issue that was long outstanding, including over successive Labor governments. It is another example where the point about getting outcomes for the veterans community is what motivated us, whereas the opposition is motivated by very base political motives.

It seems to be wise counsel that was shared with the opposition spokesman at the recent conference that he and I attended that claims processing is actually a collaborative exercise. My department is not completely in control of every aspect of that process. We work in partnership with the veterans and the claimants, the ex-service organisations and the medical practitioners.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister willing to take a question?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the minister explain, though, why there has been a cut in resourcing with respect to the claims processing area, as admitted by the head of department?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the opposition spokesman knows, there has been no slashing of resources in my department. There are sufficient resources there to handle the claims and there is a nimbleness in the way those resources are deployed to take account of the different complexions in the make-up of those claims across the three statutory schemes. Again, had he shown some interest in the subject, he would have been aware of that and he would have had the opportunity to apprise himself of some of these issues that are important to our scheme. In concluding, the other issue raised by the member—

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister willing to take a question?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you do not want me to respond to your other question? That is fine.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the minister’s earlier comment about the fact that these are only blips in the system and it is focusing on a very small number of people, how does he explain the figure of over 4,000 with respect to claims being over the average?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is another example of where the collaborative nature of the claims processing pathway is something not well understood by the opposition. With 32,000 claims a year coming through, some of which actually relate back to military service more than 60 years ago, with a cursory glance, anybody with even a passing interest in the veterans area would know that those claims can be very complex. They can involve a large number of separate ailments. They do require a proactive compilation of information. That is the collaboration in our system and it is a shame that people seem to attack it for base political motives. There is no mention of the enormous improvement and reduction in the long outstanding claims that I am sure would have been of interest to the veterans community—but the opposition seems to overlook that—as well as improvements in the claims processing pathway.

The issues regarding the Vietnam Veterans Health Study have been well canvassed. As the member for Cowan would know, I have discussed the views of the Vietnam Veterans Federation. They recognise that they had not seen the whole media press event, where four volumes were introduced, nor did they recognise that I did say the most compelling of that work was the national servicemen’s study as it neutralised the healthy soldier effect. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.