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

I commence by saying that the Labor Party supports the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. The bill amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act. There are a range of amendments principally to the VEA to formalise current practice and policy, better align the VEA with the Social Security Act, correct unintended and unfair consequences of the drafting of veterans affairs legislation and improve the department’s administration. These amendments touch upon the income and assets test, the tax treatment of veterans pensions and assets, bereavement payments and eligibility criteria for assistance and compensation. These amendments are mostly of a technical and housekeeping nature. I will go to the specifics of some of the amendments for the benefit of the House.

The amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act cover issues such as the written notification of income support pensions decisions. This will require the Repatriation Commission to provide written notification of its decisions in relation to a number of claims and other matters, in line with current practice, and make a written record of that determination, setting out its findings on questions of fact, evidence and reasons for its determination. The commission will also be required by law to provide a copy of the decision, findings and rights of appeal to the claimant, except where it is of the opinion that the information is of a confidential nature.

In addition, the family assistance payments will ensure that additional one-off payments of family assistance under the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (More Help for Families—One-off Payments) Act 2004 are not counted as income under the act. This will bring the VEA into line with the Social Security Act, which exempts one-off payments to families from the income test. It will also ensure that the disposal of assets provisions do not apply where the assets’ disposition took place more than five years before the person or the person’s partner became eligible to receive a service pension or income support supplement, or less than five years before the person or person’s partner became eligible and before the time that the disposer could reasonably have expected that the person or person’s partner would become eligible to receive a service pension or income support supplement. It will also expand the definition of compensation-affected payment to include supplementary benefits so that, in cases of overpayment, supplementary payments will be recoverable where primary payments are recoverable, in line with the provisions of the Social Security Act.

The bill will amend the bereavement payment provisions to ensure that, where a deceased person’s payments include the Defence Force income support allowance, the bereavement payment provided to the surviving partner or carer also includes that allowance. It will also amend the income and assets test for the service pension and income support supplement so that, where an asset is disposed of for less than its full value and adequate consideration is later received, the application of the deprivation provision can be cancelled or disregarded. It will also expand access to rent assistance for special rate disability pension recipients to amend an unintended provision of the VEA that precludes access to some SRDP recipients on a reduced rate due to compensation income from another source for the same injury or illness.

Under schedule 2 there are a range of amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The bill will amend the MRCA to clarify and broaden the definition of service injury or disease to include those injuries or diseases contracted or aggravated as a consequence of medical treatment for an earlier service injury or disease. The schedule will also amend the onus of proof provisions of the MRCA to cover both persons claiming for the acceptance of liability and persons claiming for compensation. This will apply to an injury sustained or disease contracted and to injuries or diseases aggravated before, on or after the commencement of this item, from 1 July 2004.

Further amendments, which relate to tidying the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004, reflect earlier amendments to the VEA. The bill will also explicitly list the income support supplement as a payment that is exempted from the requirement in the Income Tax Assessment Act to provide a tax file number, and it will also clarify the taxable status of the Defence Force income support allowance payments in line with the tax treatment of the payment that it substitutes, such as the basic rate component of the ordinary age pension or the disability support pension. Thus the DFISA payment will be tax exempt in respect of those components of the payment for which the age pension payment is also tax exempt under the ITAA.

As I said, the act is largely administrative, of minor note, but is important for ensuring we have an effective operating system and administration which provide for the needs of the veterans community. We must make sure that, through those processes, we have a system which looks after those who have served our country so well.

In that context, it is an opportunity to also make some comments regarding the system overall, particularly departmental administration issues. One issue that concerns me greatly is the time it has taken the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to process claims. The 2005-06 annual report for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs revealed a dramatic increase in the time it takes to process veterans claims, particularly those relating to injury claims. The time taken to process a primary compensation claim under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act is recorded as 106 days, while the target is 75 days. That is a 40 per cent increase over the department’s target. 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. This 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, up 62 per cent since 2004-05. The time taken to process new impairment claims under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has dramatically ballooned from 26 days to 130 days—up 400 per cent since 2004-05.

These figures are part of an overall picture that is not very pretty. The latest figures that I have been able to obtain from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs have revealed that 4,570 claims have exceeded the average time taken to process a claim. This backlog included 2,583 claims for a 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.

The high number of overdue veterans claims comes after the department revealed that they had been forced over the last two financial years to implement a net national reduction of 12.5 per cent in staff allocated to process compensation claims under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The department have said that the reduction of staffing was made in order to meet the government’s budget allocations. The minister should not be cutting staff or resources to his department when they are failing to meet their current obligations. One thing that must be understood, and understood clearly, is that veterans and ex-service personnel are often at their most vulnerable during the claims process. Emotionally and physically the process can be very draining for people. Veterans and ex-service personnel deserve more. They deserve respect and a timely consideration of their claims rather than a long and drawn-out process. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that this happens. We are talking about people who served our country, and they deserve a lot better service than what they are getting from the Howard government.

I know in response to this—because I have raised these issues in the past—that the minister makes the point that through flexible administration within the department they have been able to address some of these issues. We are still to see the evidence of that. He also makes the point that what happens on some occasions is that, effectively, because of the time taken for claimants to respond with paperwork et cetera and because the department does do not have a stop-the-clock system, this leads to an appearance of greater blow-outs in the time taken for claims to be considered than is actually the case. Nonetheless, there is absolutely no doubt that there is still an issue that needs to be addressed and this government has to do something more about it.

When we go to that question about staffing in relation to the department and the administration of the department, in last night’s budget it was revealed that the government intends to reduce the department’s average staffing level again for the third budget in a row. If we go back through that time, average staffing levels in 2005-06 were 2,463 actual, down 24 from the year before, and in 2006-07 were 2,320 actual, down 143 from the year before. The estimate as proposed in 2007-08 appears to be a cut to 2,289, down some 31. We do not know where those positions are being taken from. We are not sure. We do not have those details yet. But we will be trying to seek some further breakdown through estimates and other processes. I think we have to be really concerned that, with these problems identified in the annual report of the department, there are issues there which, frankly, need to be looked at. When we are still cutting staffing in a department who have a very important role to play in ensuring that veterans get a fair go, we have to think about whether in fact that is a good thing. I note the figures for the department are certainly well down from when you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, were the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs some years ago.

It would also be remiss of me, given last night’s events, not to talk briefly about some of the other issues which have come up in veterans affairs in recent times relating to benefits and administration and which were dealt with to some extent in last night’s budget. I will be saying more this afternoon in the main chamber when the legislation dealing specifically with some of these items is considered, but I will take the opportunity to mention them briefly now. I make it very clear that Labor welcomes the announcement of a $25,000 one-off ex gratia payment for Australian former prisoners of war in Europe or their surviving widows. These prisoners in fact missed out on the earlier decisions some years ago, which meant that prisoners of war of Japan and then later Korea received that payment. Certainly, we welcome on this occasion that matter being dealt with.

I also congratulate the government on moving on the issue of increasing funeral benefits for eligible veterans under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, doubling the benefit from $1,000 to $2,000. This has been a longstanding concern within the veterans area and is certainly a step in the right direction. It does not take into account fully what veterans under MRCA have available to them, but it is certainly an issue that needs to be dealt with, to a degree, and I congratulate the government on doing that.

It is good that the government has recognised the fact that special intermediate rate disability pensions have been eroded dramatically over the last 10 years in particular, but I also make it very clear that, although there has been a catch-up payment out of this budget, that catch-up payment does not deal with the complete erosion that has occurred over that 10-year period. Nor does it deal with the central issue of indexation, which has been the issue the veterans community has been concerned about right the way through that period.

I know the debate regarding the formula has been used as a justification for not acting on this matter over the years. I make it very clear that Labor support the catch-up payment that has been announced and will endorse that without any problem whatsoever, because we can see that there is a need for it to occur. But our commitment to implement indexation on a full basis which was made some days ago, prior to the budget, is still in place. We will do that after the next election. We will do it as a result of our first budget after the next election at the first indexation point post that budget, which will be September 2008.

In those circumstances, we want to make sure that TPIs and other severely disabled veterans are not put in a situation where every several years—every budget before an election—they have to come along cap in hand trying to catch up that which they have lost due to the erosion of their benefit with respect to community standards, because certainly that is what this payment is about. It does not address all of it, but the government’s announcement is certainly the first catch-up payment over the last decade that, it can be argued, seeks to address the indexation issue. The only other catch-up payment that was made was directly in relation to the costs of implementation of the GST. So, yes, it is long overdue. It is short of what it probably should have been and definitely does not address the central issue which is, as of two months time when this payment starts to be made, that the erosion will continue. That is the matter that the veterans community has been saying consistently needs to be addressed with respect to this issue.

I will make a couple of brief points about the budget. To ensure that veterans are not disadvantaged in any way, Labor will closely monitor the Howard government’s announcements of increased compliance measures and the potential savings arising from the areas of disability pensions, medications and health treatments. We are awaiting more detail. On the face of it, the initiatives appear to be worth while. We need to make sure that we do not disadvantage the veterans community—which, in some respects, is quite fragile—in order to drive savings. That would not be a good idea, and it would strike at the heart of a system that is compassionate and ensures that our ex-service people and veterans get a fair go. I will have more to say about those issues this afternoon in the other place. Labor supports the bill before the chamber, and I wish it a quick and speedy passage through to the other place. Its implementation will assist with the overall administration of the entitlements for veterans. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I am very pleased to speak on any matter relating to veterans affairs. I thank the member for Bruce for his generous observations—which is often the case as the veterans area of public policy is a fairly non-partisan one. Both sides of politics rightly appreciate that we could not be the sixth-oldest continuous democracy in the world had it not been for those who were prepared to serve our country at times of war—indeed, at times of peace—and to put on the uniform, which is something many of my generation have not done. I note that the member for Cowan will speak after me. It is most certainly something that he did. As a generation that simply inherited their good work, I pay tribute always to those who have served our country.

I will remark a little further on a couple of aspects. I recently returned from visiting some of our contemporary men and women in the ADF who are at work with the Royal Australian Air Force based in the gulf and with the Royal Australian Navy based on the HMAS Toowoomba. They are working in the northern part of the Arabian Gulf. The work they are doing there keeps alive the tradition of many generations of veterans. Australian servicemen and servicewomen have always gone out to make friends, even in the midst of the worst of conflicts. The men and women serving in our ADF today are keeping that tradition alive, and I simply say that everybody in this place—indeed, all around Australia—has a great reason to be very proud of the men and women of our Defence Force who are right now making friends in the gulf.

I have a story to illustrate that. A chap out of Brisbane—a lieutenant in the Navy who is involved in interdiction parties as part of securing assets belonging to the Iraqi people in the northern gulf and who boards a variety of fishing vessels and large freighter vessels—rang his wife, as he is allowed to do these days, and said, ‘I want to seal a deal; I want to make friends wherever I go.’ She sent up a carton of clip-on koalas and, now, every skipper on small fishing dhows or large international freighters gets a little clip-on koala every time the Aussies come on board. I use that story to illustrate the debt that we owe our veterans, the way the men and women of today’s Defence Force are continuing that good work and the reputation we have earned, everywhere we have gone, of being decent and honourable. In the worst of conflicts, in the height of battle—or in times between battles—Australian service people have always gone out to do the very best by those they are there to help and to work with. I am therefore very happy to support the measures contained in the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007.

The member for Bruce, as the opposition spokesperson for veterans affairs, highlighted a number of matters contained in last night’s budget. I do not wish to labour this for too long, but, like him, I welcome the recognition that prisoners of war in the European theatre of the Second World War were not the subject of Hogan’s Heroes type treatment. Any time that someone is held captive by an opposing force is a dreadful time. In the very rich environment that we have in this country today—a result of the government’s strong economic record but mainly because of the passion and ability of people in business to create wealth—we must go out of our way  to distribute that wealth to those sorts of people. So I am pleased about that.

Also, the doubling of funerals benefits for veterans is long overdue. I am sure that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will address the TPI and disabled matters that the member for Bruce raised, but it is worth saying that last night’s budget delivered a special rate disability pension increase of $50 per fortnight and an intermediate rate pension increase of $25 per fortnight. Those with disabilities and infirmities as a result of war are never adequately compensated, but the government has stepped in the right direction with regard to that. As you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, would know because of your strong passion for the veteran community—not just when you were the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs but consistently during your time in this place—the Clarke review looked very closely at whether or not the special rate pension should be considered. The government is always willing to take advice from the veteran community in these matters. I do not think that we can ever compensate veterans enough for what they go through, but we should always pay them a debt of gratitude.

Before dealing with the detail of the bill, I want to record my enormous lamentation. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you would have met this gentleman. Stan Crisp BEM—British Empire Medal—the Secretary of the Yeronga-Dutton Park RSL for many years and the receiver of the Centenary Medal, sadly passed away in the worst possible way. Sadly, in this country veterans die every day, but Stan was a hero at war, a hero in peace and a great worker in our community. His funeral is tomorrow. We did not see him at Ekibin Memorial Park or Gair Park this year—two events that the Yeronga-Dutton Park RSL organises. Stan lost his battle with cancer, which came upon him suddenly, but he lived to be a good age and worked very strongly in our community. He told me years ago, ‘Go and get a bit of navy in you, son.’ The main reason I was happy to visit the troops on HMAS Toowoomba, as I said at the Ekibin Memorial Park Anzac Day service, was Stan Crisp’s urging. Stan, thank you. We are going to miss you, mate. Thanks for everything that you did.

This bill is going to make a number of technical changes to the way the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the compensation acts work. The definition of ‘compensation affected pension’ will be amended so that the telephone allowance, the advanced pharmaceutical allowance and the education entry payment, when paid to certain service pensioners and income support pension recipients, are included in the compensation recovery provisions within the act. This will ensure that any payments that have been made during a compensation preclusion period are recoverable under the compensation recovery provisions. Currently these payments are recovered directly from the pensioner separately to any overpayments, and we are making a change there. The change will have little impact on the recovery provisions, but will obviously deliver a far better service to the veteran community and also remove the indignity of the recovery process.

Equally, we are going to insert written notification requirements. There is not currently a legislative requirement. There are procedural guidelines which the Department of Veterans’ Affairs follows which require the provision of these notifications. These amendments will ensure that pensioners are notified of any determinations regarding their income support entitlements. Again this will ensure that there is dignity through the process.

There are amendments concerning the receipt or return of adequate consideration of a deprived asset to promote greater fairness. The amendments remove the requirement for an asset to be double counted. I mean no offence to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs folks who are here, but I find it strange that a lot of government departments are forever labouring our aged population, the older members of our population, with requirements to report things. I am not making policy on the run, but I suspect that, if you paid everybody above a certain age a pension and let the tax system sort it out, you could remove a whole pile of bureaucracy and reduce the impact on a lot of everyday people. I do not know why the oldest in our community are always being impacted upon.

I welcome this particular legislation because it also says to veterans: ‘We’re not going to impact upon you as much as we might have in the past by these sorts of procedures. In fact we are going to give you greater dignity by removing some of the inconsistency between the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and social security law, for instance.’ That is certainly the case in some areas in the way this particular legislation will operate.

There are changes regarding the bereavement payment for carer payment recipients under social security law that relate to the Defence Force income support allowance. It is intended to put social security income support recipients in the same position as they would be if their disability pension was regarded as exempt income. Including DFISA in the bereavement payment for carers will certainly achieve that intention.

There are various other changes, including rent assistance allowance for those eligible for family tax benefit and restoring a legislative base for paying rent assistance under the VEA to income support pensioners who are not eligible for family tax benefit. DVA have always paid rent assistance within the spirit of the intention of that legislation—that is, to income support pensioners. We are making these sorts of changes and these sorts of provisions to ensure that our veterans community is better served.

I do not disagree with the aspirations of the member for Bruce to do more. He has to work very hard as the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs because the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Billson, works very hard. He is very enthusiastic and a bit of a Peter Pan in that I do not think he ever wants to grow old—a bit like the Minister for Ageing, really—and he embraces our veterans community. He listens to them and offers them respect—lest we ever forget the effort that veterans of the distant past, of the recent past and, indeed, of today have made for this country. I do not think we can ever do enough to repay that debt, their efforts on our behalf, but we must always be looking for new ways to serve them as they have served us. I commend this legislation to the House.

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

The issues I want to talk about in relation to the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 go in some part to the administration of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. My comments will also touch on the issue raised by the previous speaker about the fact that some people have to jump through hoops for a lot of government departments. I want to talk about some of the problems arising in the veterans community because of the multitude of agencies they have to confront.

I want to begin by referring to an article in the Daily Telegraph written by Ian McPhedran, a person who takes a strong interest in defence and veterans issues. This article was published on 2 May. I am not going to quote it all, but I want to quote some of it. The article begins by saying:

According to Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Billson and some self-proclaimed armchair experts, there is an “industry” feeding off mentally-ill Australian war veterans.

This is a bit rich at a time when the Department of Veterans Affairs is spending record amounts of taxpayer dollars fighting the compensation claims of veterans.

The article goes on to say:

Even more disturbing is the fact that Mr Billson jumped on the bandwagon. Fresh from crying crocodile tears for veterans on ABC TV, Mr Billson whinged about aggressive legal firms sourcing potential veteran clients.

Just so the facts don’t get in the way of a good story, Mr Billson would also know that legal firms have opted out of veterans work because they can’t afford the pro-bono effort required to combat a litigious Department of Veterans Affairs with a bottomless bucket of taxpayer dollars.

That department spent $5 million on private lawyers two years ago to fight veterans in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and has devoted $600,000 to a pilot program for using private law firms inside the DVA.

I also keep a fairly close eye on the emails that fly around the veteran community. A bloke that I have had a bit to do with over the years and for whom I have a lot of respect recently sent some emails to the minister and received a response from him. This is Normie Rowe, who is a very high-profile and well-known veteran. In one of the emails, Normie wrote:

But you know Bruce comparing our repat system with others doesn’t do it for me, what would do it for me is if instead of trying to find ways of winding it down, Government saw it as important to pro-actively look for ways of making compensation accessible to those who deserve it.

Get rid of Writeways, they just muddy the water, and have access to files and documents a private company shouldn’t have access to and that don’t even have anything to do with the matter they are supposed to be “researching”.

And then it would be a great step forward [if] Veterans were treated the same way upon return as they are sucked up to when they are sent off to war.

There is another email from Normie that I want to quote in part because it is pertinent to what I say here. He wrote:

... but if while I’m still alive diggers who deserve to be looked after are looked after, and don’t have to fight for justice until they commit suicide, then I’ll vote for and encourage others to vote for the party/ies who will save those lives. And will justly compensate diggers not sell them out.

Those comments lead into what I want to talk about today, which also includes the impact on veterans who have to deal with multi-agencies. I refer to a letter which is part of a report from a consulting psychiatrist. They were asked to do a report on a veteran who had returned from Afghanistan, who had been discharged from the Army and who has tragically committed suicide.

In quoting from this report I call on the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to look at their administration and at the way they are dealing with young men and women. It really worries me, as a veteran, that within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, within Defence, within government and within this parliament there appears to be a complete lack of understanding of post-traumatic stress, a complete lack of understanding of the impact on young men and women of the conditions they confront in a theatre of war and a complete lack of understanding of the trauma and the memory that those young men and women bring home with them. Trauma does not come about only as a result of action or confrontation with the enemy; it can come about from a whole range of things. It can come about from having to be constantly prepared, constantly on edge, for combat. It can come about from being constantly on the alert, constantly aware of what is happening around you and constantly prepared to immediately defend yourself. Fear and the concept of fear have a lot to do with post-traumatic stress disorder. In my view, it is not just about the actual combat. Perhaps it will become more apparent as I quote from the letter. The psychiatrist, in his general comments about the young man whom he had been asked to assess, wrote:

Although somewhat better rapport was established toward the end of the interview—

he—

was clearly reluctant to volunteer information during the assessment. Part of this appeared to be based on anger, frustration and irritation at repeated medical assessments and interviews, part I think is related to significant residual depression and anxiety symptoms in an individual who has been severely traumatised by his past experiences.

…            …            …

It does appear that the diagnosis that led to his discharge on medical grounds was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It also appears that, in parallel with this diagnosis—

he—

has experienced significant depressive symptoms with suicidal ideation at various points. A third medical condition that is referred to is the presence of Panic Disorder.

The psychiatrist says:

[He] currently feels unable to work. His reasons include an absence of motivation and drive, fear in some situations, his concerns over the impact of a “stress load” and his “state of mind”. It was difficult to obtain more detail than the above and he responded with “don’t know” to a number of specific questions.

…            …            …

He also complains of constant fatigue, marked irritability and a whole range of anxiety symptoms including dread, fear, apprehension and marked avoidance.

The vast majority of these experiences are trigger dependent.

I want to come back to ‘trigger dependent’. The psychiatrist goes on:

Certain smells and noise can trigger these immediately. They are of a fluctuating pattern. He also describes sustained chronic suicidal ideation. He is clear that he has no current intent or plan and feels in control of his self-harm thinking. He also reports a reduction in concentration and attention which he feels then impacts on his short-term memory, which he describes as being reduced.

He also reports day/night reversal of his sleeping pattern, preferring to sleep during the day and being awake at night.

In terms of his mental state assessment, based on this history and examination—

he—

appeared as a—

young—

individual who looked his age and was neatly dressed and well groomed. The assessment was difficult because of his reluctance to speak spontaneously and disclose personal information ...

My assessment was that this difficulty in rapport was not because he was being difficult and deliberately withholding information. Rather, it was because of  understandable frustration at having to repeat this process again, on a background of ongoing depressive and anxiety symptoms, many of which are still troubling him at this stage.

In summary—

he—

presents as a—

young man—

in a supportive relationship with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depressive symptoms, Panic Disorder and stomach pain of unknown aetiology ...

In terms of his fitness for work, at present he is unfit for full-time work or part-time work of any nature. This is because, in addition to significant biological symptoms of depression and anxiety, he continues to have suicidal ideation which is chronic and sustained. It is unlikely that he will return to full-time work or part-time work until these symptoms have ameliorated.

The prescribed impairment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is an appropriate description of his retiring impairment. In addition to this however, the presence of depressive symptoms, Panic Disorder and chronic suicidal ideation are also significant impairments.

The consulting psychiatrist went on to say this:

My current opinion is that—

he—

is unable to perform any of these roles given his current mood and mental state. This is because his depressive and anxiety symptoms are still severe. In addition, his chronic suicidal ideation would render the completion of tasks under these roles unlikely. Furthermore, if he attempts to fulfil these roles the potential stress associated with this attempt may exacerbate his existing depressive symptoms and put him at higher risk of suicide.

Any veteran who has gone through the system, through the mill, and has had to jump through hoops and over obstacles will relate intimately to what I have just read into the Hansard because they know as veterans; they have had to do it themselves and they have had to confront these issues.

I spoke about how the vast majority of these experiences are ‘trigger dependent’. I know things about post-traumatic stress disorder and I am no expert. I worked in the Vietnam veterans counselling service when we set it up in Perth. I have spoken to many veterans over many years. I am no expert on post-traumatic stress disorder but I know that a veteran can be perfectly fine for a period of time, then something will happen, a trigger will be pulled somewhere, and the veteran will fall into the worst patterns of post-traumatic stress disorder.

When veterans are forced to deal with multiagencies it is no wonder that their situation, their symptoms and their general health can deteriorate. It certainly happened in this case and, unfortunately, the suicide of this young man was not in isolation. One veterans organisation tells me that in the last 12 or 18 months or so there have been five suicides that it is aware of. All were people who were dealing with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. For younger veterans, their dealings with the department are not made easier by having to deal with multiagencies. It is something that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the government and the minister must deal with. They must look at the situation which confronts the digger after they have been to war, been deployed and come home and after they have to deal with these issues.

This young man that I have spoken about was not put in the T&PI. They did not recognise the extent of his post-traumatic stress disorder. They put him in what is known as a T&TI, temporarily and totally incapacitated, which meant that the onus would have been on him to continue to fight the department, continue to go through assessment and continue to make himself available for those assessments. And who knows what triggered his suicide?

It is a tragic reminder of the impact of war, of deployment on young men and women. It is also true to say—in my view anyway—that it is not just deployment to a war zone that can cause post-traumatic stress disorder. When we send young men and women overseas on peacekeeping or peacemaking deployments we also run the risk of them contracting or coming back with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is real. In many ways as a veteran, I have been fortunate. I sit in a wheelchair. People can see my injuries. They are very obvious. I have never had to fight to have them recognised. I have had to fight with the department on a number of occasions, however, over other issues. But someone who comes home from a deployment who has post-traumatic stress disorder has a wound which is not as readily identifiable as mine or those of others in similar circumstances. Because of that, there is a tendency by some people in the department and in government to disbelieve the individual making the claim. I have no doubt that from time to time there are those who will try to use the system to their own advantage, but we cannot and should not penalise genuine individuals like this young man who I have spoken about today. We must give them the benefit of the doubt.

We must understand that post-traumatic stress disorder, having been better identified in recent decades, is a real problem for young soldiers, young men and women. We have to do better as a nation and as a government, and our departments who we charge with dealing with these veterans have to do better in the way they are handling these young men and women who present. I think much of that responsibility comes back to us in parliament. I am not convinced that the military compensation laws that went through this place a couple of years ago—and I said this at the time—act in the best interests of young men and women seeking compensation. We certainly have to look at the problem of multiagencies, and we have to stop making young men and women, like this young fellow who tragically committed suicide, jump through the hoops and have to front for continual and constant assessment. We have to do better than that. If we do not, we are going to experience, tragically, suicide within our veteran community.

Having said that, there is one matter I very quickly want to turn to. I want to compliment the minister on the support that he gave to the Operation Aussies Home blokes in Vietnam, Jim Bourke and his team, who have been fighting tenaciously for a long period of time to identify, and have fully accounted for, the six MIAs in Vietnam. I had the opportunity to go to the handover the other day of the remains of the two young 1RAR soldiers. It was very sombre, sad and humbling to be there for that handover. I congratulate Jim Bourke, his team and the government team that were sent up there, and I congratulate the minister on the support he gave them. They have all done very, very well. My thoughts particularly on that occasion went out to the family. It must be important for them to have the closure that they now have because of the work of Jim Bourke and his team.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With colleagues from both sides of the House I have recently been privileged to participate in local awards ceremonies to recognise our veterans with the Australian Defence Medal. This is one of many ceremonies I have been proud to be part of in my 17 years in parliament. At these awards, and indeed as I move around the electorate, I am constantly amazed by what these men and women have experienced and achieved. Our veterans served at Gallipoli, the battlefields of western Europe, northern Africa and the Middle East during the First World War. Whilst sadly there are no World War I veterans still with us, their legacy lives on in their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Veterans also served in South-East Asia, the Pacific and New Guinea as well as Africa and Europe during the Second World War. Since 1945, they have served us proudly in the Pacific, Korea and Japan and helped keep peace in Africa. In the seventies they served us in Vietnam. Most recently they have served in East Timor, the Solomons, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Only last month I attended Anzac Day ceremonies together with the odd smoko in my electorate to recognise and to remember our coming of age as a nation. It is a wonderful experience to be present at a school acknowledging our veterans and to see the children grow in understanding of exactly what we are commemorating. The phrase ‘we salute their service’ is more than just words. It is a commemoration of their contribution to who we are as a nation.

The bill before us today, the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, is a technical bill containing a range of amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and other acts which affect the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio. The amendments are minor housekeeping amendments which would correct some unintended consequences of the current drafting and better align the income support and pension arrangements under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act with those of the Social Security Act 1991.

I wish to take this opportunity, however, to make some remarks about our veterans. Too often we see on television or read in the newspapers about the health concerns facing our veterans—health concerns that are both physical and mental. A quick Google search provides a massive list of studies and statistics on matters relating to the health of veterans. Let me just refer to one. A story in the Australian newspaper on 29 January this year quoted from documents obtained under freedom of information laws. These documents revealed, as the article starts:

ONE in four Australian soldiers who served in Vietnam has made a successful claim for post-traumatic stress disorder.

One in four is a cruel reflection of what our Vietnam veterans have experienced. It is an appalling national figure. The article also states that there is now an impact on our service people from recent military operations in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. The article goes on to quote Professor McFarlane, head of the University of Adelaide’s Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health and a senior adviser in psychiatry to the ADF. Professor McFarlane stated that post-traumatic stress could manifest years after the events that had caused the actual harm. He is quoted as saying:

“Someone can function extraordinarily well in combat and break down some years later.”

This is just one of many thousands of stories which indicate the extent of the illness we are dealing with. I can have little respect for a government that stands up and says how proud it is of our veterans and yet does little to ensure that they are looked after with special care on their return to civilian life. It is simply unacceptable.

I wish to refer to a letter I received from a returned serviceman from Picnic Point in my electorate. Mr John Shields wrote to me regarding the inconsistency of this government’s current indexing of the totally and permanently incapacitated disability pension. To be eligible for a T&PI pension, a veteran must be in receipt of 70 per cent or more of the general rate disability pension; unable to work more than eight hours per week because of his or her accepted disabilities, and for those disabilities alone; suffering a loss of income that would not otherwise be lost; and under 65 years of age. There are also special rules for granting the pension to a veteran who is 65 years or older in recognition that this is normally considered pension age.

In my electorate of Banks, according to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs statistics provided by the parliamentary website, there are 112 T&PI or special rate pensioners. Their average age is 72.22 years. Mr Shields drew my attention to an article in the Vietnam veteran newsletter dated March 2007. This article provides a copy of a letter from the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. The essence of the letter is the loss of value in the T&PI pension since 1979. The bottom line, according to the author of the letter from the VVFA, is:

The TPI pension was 47.3% of the average wage in 1997 and it is now 43.5%. The TPI pension is losing its value.

As I understand it, the T&PI pension is adjusted in line with the cost-of-living index. Incomes in the form of wages tend to increase at a faster rate than the cost-of-living adjustments. By 2004 the T&PI pension had lost $78 in value because adjustments are made in line with the cost-of-living index rather than average wages. Prior to 1997 all Commonwealth pensions were increased in line with the consumer price index. There was a lag factor, as I indicated earlier, whereby wages increased more quickly than the cost of living; therefore, pensions were always behind. In 1997 the increases to almost all Commonwealth pensions were readjusted to reflect increases in the average wage rather than in the CPI. The exception was the T&PI pension. Recently there was another change, and 60 per cent of the T&PI has been indexed to movements in the average wage.

I fail to understand why this is the case. Why are T&PI pensioners any different to general disability pensioners, age pensioners or war widows? This simply does not make any sense. Labor has determined that this is a gross injustice and that it will resolve it if elected. The shadow minister, the member for Bruce, said at the ALP national conference on 29 April:

We need a Veterans’ Affairs policy that focuses on restoring the value of compensation – it is not enough for a Government to introduce services, it must maintain them to avoid a recurring cycle of playing catch ups as we have seen with the current Government.

Delegates, the value of compensation for our most severely disabled war veterans has been eroding compared to the standard of living in the broader community. This is unacceptable.

The Labor government would restore the value of the T&PI intermediate rate and the extreme disablement adjustment pensions by indexing the whole of these pensions to movements in male total average weekly earnings or the consumer price index, whichever is the greater.

It is anticipated that such a change would directly impact on 43,000 war veterans with disabilities. Certainly, it would improve the lot of 112 T&PI pensioners in the electorate of Banks. In the budget, the Treasurer announced an increase of $50 a fortnight for special rate T&PI pensions. I am pleased for these pension recipients that this increase has occurred. It is better than nothing, but surely the Treasurer and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs realise that there must be some certainty beyond the whim of any government in terms of these increases, which is why I suggest the formula be as I have stated. Certainty can quite simply be achieved by tying the pension rate to the male total average weekly earnings. It is not too much to ask that people know from week to week, year to year, exactly what they can anticipate in terms of their pension. There is no point in just waiting until a budget before an election for the anticipated increase.

The Labor leader and the shadow minister in a joint statement on 6 May estimated that under Labor’s proposal the recipients of the T&PI pensions will be $1,700 better off with their pensions building up to $30 more a fortnight than they otherwise have been. Labor has listened to this country’s veterans such as Mr John Shields of Picnic Point, and promises to act to fix the problem. This should not be a political issue for either side of politics. It should be an issue embraced by both sides of politics. Veterans deserve it. Anyone who puts on a uniform for this country deserves to be properly looked after when they return. They do not deserve to be ignored. They do not deserve the bean counters to continue to do a job on them as they have done year in and year out.

The budget delivered last night showed that we are awash with money. The veterans in our community should be looked after and dealt with the same as other recipients of welfare benefits in our community. They should not be discriminated against. They should not be treated in a way that is costing them thousands of dollars that they otherwise are entitled to. I do commend the bill to the parliament.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. As we have heard from other speakers—let me say from the outset that Labor supports this bill—veterans affairs is an area which always requires improvement. It is certainly an area which I am very passionate about and I am very committed to being a very strong advocate for veterans and their families, not just in my electorate of Richmond but nationwide as well.

This bill addresses a number of housekeeping items in regard to veterans affairs legislation. Nonetheless, these are important amendments which streamline the process and regulations by which veterans access government services. These amendments will better align the income support and pension arrangements under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and those of the Social Security Act 1991. Passage of these amendments will see sensible changes that will actually help veterans and their families access those services of which they are most deserving. The provisions of the bill address anomalies from the original act and its subsequent amendments. Labor welcomes these very overdue changes.

As we have heard, this bill comprises five schedules. Schedule 1 details changes better outlining other compensatory provisions for veterans and their families, with particular reference to spousal income. In this sense, it better aligns the VEA with the Social Security Act 1991, which will result in less confusion for these families. Schedule 2 deals specifically with medical issues for returned service men and women. This is an area of veterans legislation in which we can and must see improvement. It is so important to deal effectively with the ongoing health problems suffered by many veterans and of course the flow-on anguish which affects their families and loved ones and those close to them.

As we have heard other speakers say today, the experience of military service, particularly in armed combat, often results in both harrowing physical and mental conditions which are indeed very complex. In recognition of this, the process in which returned service men and women access these services should be as straightforward as possible. Of course, that cannot always be the case; nonetheless, this should not weaken our commitment in this area. Specifically, schedule 2 amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. It allows that any unintended or intended injury or disease arising from medical treatment for an existing service related ailment will be counted as arising from that original diagnosis. It allows provisions for the medical profession to deal with the health issues of veterans without the timely and confusing process of tracing liability—and this certainly is an overdue yet welcome provision within this bill.

Schedule 3 is straightforward, simply repealing redundant provisions that have been in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act as a result of the amendments to the VEA that were later repealed and substituted. Schedules 4 and 5 deal with issues relating to veterans pensions and taxation. Schedule 4 will ensure that income support supplements for veterans included in the list of payments are exempted from the requirement to provide a tax file number to investment bodies for certain investments. So it brings the income support supplement in line with other payments claimed by veterans.

Schedule 5 deals specifically with Defence Force income support allowance payments. The provisions of this schedule align this payment with the way an ordinary age pension will be treated in regard to taxation requirements. Simply put, these payments will receive the same tax exemptions that exist on the age pension. Commencing on 1 July this year, this is a sensible provision which will help veterans and their families deal with taxation issues.

As I stated earlier, Labor supports these changes. They are uncontroversial, yet their debate gives this chamber an opportunity to reflect on the commitment that veterans have shown our country through their service and, indeed, the way we honour and respect that service. My electorate of Richmond has one of the highest number of veterans in the country. I am often touched by their stories and saddened by hearing of the difficulties they face, both medically and in accessing government services. Indeed, veterans and their families face a unique set of challenges—challenges which they should be assisted in dealing with by the full commitment of the Australian government. I wish that I could say that this is the case. The unfortunate truth, however, is that the Howard government has often neglected this group.

I want to touch specifically on the area of lack of resources provided for those veterans and their families suffering from mental health issues as a direct result of their service to Australia. Mental health issues for veterans are areas that are often misunderstood in terms of treatment as well as the government provisions available to those needing treatment. Of course, the complexities involved with these issues, particularly with post-traumatic stress disorder, are very involved. Simply put, there are not enough resources and there are not enough people trained to understand these complexities and the multitude of issues surrounding mental health for veterans. There is not enough support for families living day in and day out in these particular situations.

Veterans and their families often face an uphill battle in understanding and accessing the support services in this area and are very often reliant on underresourced non-profit organisations for very vital support. These groups, committed to helping veterans and their families wherever they can, of course do a wonderful job, but they are indeed facing an uphill battle. More resources are long overdue in both understanding and treating the difficulties faced by veterans once they complete their service. This is certainly an issue that I will continue to fight for. It is vitally important that we do have an improvement in services in this area.

The Labor Party recognises and understands the complexity of veterans affairs issues. These issues are on a number of fronts: health, including mental health, which I have just outlined; finance; and recognition of service, just to name a few. They are complicated issues which must be addressed of course by the whole community but ones in which the federal government should play a very vital and leading role. In response to this responsibility, the federal Labor Party has recently outlined its policy to increase benefits for our nation’s most severely disabled war veterans. These are the men and women who have paid a staggering price in the service of our country and the men and women who have indeed been severely neglected by the Howard government.

Essentially, Labor’s proposal will restore the value of the special rate disability pension—TPI and TTI intermediate rate. These pensions, on which thousands of veterans and their families rely as often their only source of income, have been steadily eroded by the Howard government. I was very pleased to see that a Rudd Labor government will address this gross injustice, particularly for the over 600 veterans in Richmond who will be direct beneficiaries of a policy such as that. Of course, the problem is one specifically of indexation. Over the last 10 years these pensions have been indexed only to the CPI. Estimates are that, because of this, the value of the pension has decreased. In the case of a special rate disability pension, the loss in value has been over $70 per fortnight.

The Labor Party is committed to addressing this injustice. In 1997 the Howard government indexed a range of pensions, but the above rate general pension was not one of them. The undeniable fact of this decision by the government is that veterans are now struggling to meet the day-to-day increased cost of living. Federal Labor will index these pensions to the total average weekly earnings or the CPI, whichever is greater. This will of course have a very significant impact on thousands of families. It is the very least we can do for these men and women, many of whom have paid a very high price in the service of our country.

I urge the Howard government to see the humanity in this proposal and adopt it as soon as possible. I do not believe there has been another issue which has been of such sustained and passionate concern in the veterans policy area over the last 10 years as this particular one. Certainly many veterans in my electorate have approached me over the last few years concerning this matter, and I was very pleased to see the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs and the opposition leader making this announcement last week.

As I said before, Labor stands ready to support any initiative that the Howard government makes in this area. We certainly encourage it to come forth and follow our lead and match that commitment. I was quite appalled that the veterans’ affairs minister attacked this plan to increase the benefits. Federal Labor has challenged the minister to explain why he is opposing increasing these benefits. It is quite disheartening to see that Australia appears to have a veterans’ affairs minister who does not appear to be supporting our veterans. I believe this is a cynical and tired government that has consistently ignored the difficulties faced by veterans. It should feel shamed, particularly on this specific issue.

A fortnight has passed since this country paused on Anzac Day to honour the commitment and sacrifice made by our returned servicemen and servicewomen. Services were held right across the country to acknowledge veterans in our community. Particularly in Richmond, it is wonderful to see more people coming out each year to these services, whether it be the dawn services or the marches during the day. It was an absolute honour that Peter Cosgrove was able to attend the march and the service that we had at Kingscliff. It was wonderful to see so many younger children involved and taking the time to remember and respect the service of so many.

As I stated earlier, my electorate of Richmond does have one of the largest numbers of veterans in the country. One of my greatest honours as an MP is being able to constantly meet with them and the local RSLs and different veterans groups throughout the community, work with them and hear their concerns firsthand. I am sure we all agree it is moving to hear those stories when they speak of their experiences, their service and their often great hardship and sacrifice. But it also inspires me to fight for recognition for them and their service. It was wonderful to see so many people recognising that service on Anzac Day.

Previous speakers have said that, with different community functions of late, we have been able to recognise them through the presentation of the ADMs. Last year in Richmond many community groups worked together with veterans groups to have the first Richmond Remembers event—which is a week-long series of events involving schoolchildren and the community—in which we took time to remember the service of veterans from all conflicts. It is an event that I hope will continue for many years, as everyone in our community remembers the service of so many.

In conclusion, I reiterate that Labor supports the changes I outlined earlier. We are pleased that the government has put them forward and is dealing with the anomalies that have occurred through the amendments to the original legislation. With regard to issues facing veterans and their families, however, I emphasise that there is much more to be done in this area. It is quite disheartening that the Howard government has often neglected to deal with the unique difficulties that veterans and their families face. As I have said, federal Labor has already put forward a plan to rectify the area of indexation of the pensions provided to our most severely disabled war veterans. Again, I strongly urge the Howard government to see the injustice of the system currently in place and to do the right thing and introduce legislation which would deal with it. It would certainly receive great support right across the chamber. This is an area that has to be addressed.

I am very privileged to represent the many hundreds of veterans living in the Richmond electorate. I believe our nation is indebted to those courageous Australians who put their lives on the line in the service of our country and I remain absolute in my commitment to honouring them and their place in our history.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. Of course, the main purpose of the minor housekeeping amendments in this bill is to correct some unintended consequences of the current drafting and better align the income support and pension arrangements under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act with those of the Social Security Act 1991. The amendments in this bill are supported on the basis that they seek to remedy some unintended consequences of the current drafting of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The bill presents in great detail amendments to a range of sections of the acts—outlined very well, I might add, by the Parliamentary Library briefing on this bill—on which I do not intend to speak in detail other than to say that it is good to see we can have a correction and have the appropriate parts of this legislation amended, as is obviously required.

This also gives me an opportunity, quite appropriately, to bring to the attention of the chamber a concern I have in relation to services affecting veterans in my electorate. In doing so, I refer particularly to the Veterans Home Care program, the VHC program. I would like to speak briefly about some of the issues that have arisen in my area as a result of some changes that are taking place. I want to note quite openly that I have approached the minister on this matter and have received a very long and detailed response, some four pages, to my correspondence, for which I am grateful. There seems to me to be a need to talk a little about some of the issues at a human level.

My understanding is that the Veterans Home Care program had been operating around the countryside for some time and that the ACT Department of Health unit had successfully tendered for the operation of this program here in the ACT and was quite happily the facilitator of the program. Last year, with the contract period coming to an end in December and the department calling for new tenders, the process changed somewhat and the ACT Department of Health unit made the decision not to tender again, as to do so would have meant that they would be tendering in a competitive process to supply this service to the ACT, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. This was a little outside what they saw as their jurisdiction in the way they had operated in the past, so they made a conscious decision not to tender. I understand that at the end of the process an organisation called Aged Care & Housing Group Limited, ACH Group, from South Australia were given the new contract and that from December, when that contract came into place, they were the organisation running this process and a number of organisations in different parts of the four jurisdictions I have mentioned carry out the work on behalf of that organisation.

It is fair to say that, from about January onwards, my electorate office began to get phone calls from people in the community who were expressing concern about some of the changes that this process had led to. An officer from ACH Group with whom we had a conversation indicated that, from their perspective, they were implementing the program as per guidelines only. They admitted that they had run into a number of unhappy veterans during phone assessments. It seems to me that maybe phone assessments are part of the problem. These people are being assessed, as I understand it—and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—with a telephone interview. We are talking about fairly elderly people. Also, in discussion with us, one of the many providers in this region carrying out this work on behalf of ACH Group said that on-the-ground providers of some care support they were giving were indicating to some of them that they may have a few concerns about some of the changes and the impacts of the changes, but they obviously take direction from ACH Group.

We had a discussion with Legacy. I am sure they will not mind me mentioning this. Legacy is a wonderful community organisation. Like all members in this place, our electorate officers speak to hundreds of organisations doing good work out there. It appears that some of their people may have been approached by some of the recipients of this program in the normal way that they would for support. In the way that they understood it, in relation to the changes, it appears that they were seeing some unnecessary stress, as they would describe it, being put upon some of our veteran widows in particular.

On this side of the chamber, we are not against changes. If there is a good reason to change something then obviously you do. But when you are dealing with vulnerable, frail, elderly people—those living on their own in particular—you have to make absolutely certain that the way you are carrying out those changes has the least possible negative impact that you could wish for.

I will just outline very briefly some of the things that have changed. I will not mention names, even though the minister is aware of whom I am speaking about, because we were very honest with him. An elderly couple in their 80s were getting an hour and a half for shopping and an hour and a half for cleaning once a fortnight, alternating. That has changed and now only one person, instead of two people, has to do both of those jobs. The elderly couple has to pay slightly more. It is still a small cost, but they have to pay slightly more. The belief is that the worst thing that has changed is that the clients cannot go out shopping with the carers anymore. In the past they were taken out shopping; now they are left at home. I understand that it is for insurance reasons. I am happy for all of this to be clarified. From the point of view of my constituents, it was the only opportunity for the gentleman to leave the house for a purposeful reason, maybe other than going to a doctor, and he enjoyed those shopping expeditions. That was to change or it had changed.

Everybody I am talking about is in their late 70s, 80s or 90s. Another lady previously had someone coming every day to shower and dress her, along with three hours a week for shopping and socialising and two hours a fortnight for cleaning. Now she is getting showered only three times a week. She cannot dress herself properly because of her physical problems. She now has only two hours for shopping and is not allowed to go out shopping with a staff member. She understands that, if she wants to go to the bank and nobody can take her, a PIN needs to be made available. I am not sure whether that is completely accurate, but it is a query. She is pretty concerned about the changes that are affecting her.

A gentleman was previously receiving a shower every day and that has been cut back to three showers a week. He has to deal with some physical problems. I think that has been resumed to virtually a daily shower. He cannot get transport assistance from DVA for medical appointments or social outings. He can no longer go shopping with the carer as he could in the past. That was mentioned constantly. He is feeling the lack of availability of transport.

In my office we are trying to see whether we can link up someone like him with a program run by a community service. These folk have stability in their life because they have a program. If anything changes, it is a huge issue for these folk. It is for those reasons that I want to talk about it. When change is needed, yes, let us do it, but can we please be aware of what we are doing and somehow walk these folk through what needs to be done.

There is another person, a woman who is 80-plus years of age, who is really angry about the phone assessment process. She is uncomfortable with it and feels that she is not being seen, in the true sense of an assessment. Her hours have also been dramatically cut. Legacy has been involved. As a result of Legacy’s involvement, I understand that any changes for her have been deferred—maybe to around June—to see whether she can be assisted in sliding across to other services, if that be the case.

There is another woman, who is 85-plus, whose son contacted us. He does what he can to assist his mother, but, again, certain services were cut back from two hours a week to two hours a fortnight and then to nothing. I understand that the department offered an annual spring-clean but then said, ‘We can’t do that unless all the internal windows have been prestripped by you first, and we will not do the second storey.’ These are the sorts of stories that we have been given, and we have fed these stories quite honestly to the minister. I will refer to his reply in a moment. There is also another darling who is 92. She had three hours a week for washing and basic cleaning cut back to 1½ hours. She is not at all very mobile, and, again, Legacy is involved with her. As I said, I am attempting to be very honest and generous about this because there may be good reasons for certain changes taking place.

In the minister’s letter, he said to me that the VHC program assists Australia’s veterans, war widows and widowers with low-care needs to remain at home for longer—and we applaud that—and that it provides domestic assistance; respite care, in-home and residential; personal care; and safety related home and garden maintenance. The in-home respite is only available to people with a carer—I understand that—but the domestic assistance and the personal care is the stuff of import to these people. I do not wish to go through all the detail in the minister’s letter. Suffice to say that the department has indicated that maybe some of these people were incorrectly assessed or incorrectly serviced in the previous tendering contracts. I do not know whether that is true, because I think it is all being looked at.

The minister also said that where they believe there has been or where there is now an inappropriate supply of service, some folk may need to be referred to other programs—HACC programs or other community programs. That is not really an issue for me, I guess. At the end of the day, I want these people to get the services they need in the most untraumatic, friendly and sensitive way possible. If a reassessment or reassignment is needed for the people in this age group, I think it would be better if it was not done by phone. It is a good thing to walk into their home and actually see their surroundings, understand their needs and their physicality, or otherwise, and make an assessment on that basis.

Be that as it may, should there be the decision at the end of the day that people like this have to be reassessed and reassigned to another service, can it please be done with sensitivity so that it does not result in the trauma that I believe may be occurring with some of these people. It is fair to say that some of that trauma could be attributed to their age, their frailty and their situation in life. For whatever reason, I think this needs a little bit of care. I am not blaming the minister but, somehow down the line, we need to find a way to handle this. I am not happy when I get a phone call from a 92-year-old woman who is maintaining herself remarkably well in her own home, considering her age—and I think she is the one I am referring to; one of them has a very severe sight impairment—and find out that the service that she has been getting, which was only three hours a week, has been cut back to 1½ hours. One wonders whether a cutback of that nature is really required. Three hours a week is not a lot of time, does not cost a lot of money and does not involve a lot of care, but she was happy with it.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity during this debate to bring the Main Committee’s attention to the changes in the VHC program and to appeal to the minister and to his folk that they do all they can—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) 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 member for Canberra willing to give way?

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, certainly.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder whether, for the purpose of what you have been discussing, the vet’s care system is using an aged care assessment team to assess the clients?

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to try to answer that. Somewhere in the minister’s letter I think he says that part of the process for these people—and I stand to be corrected if I have this wrong—would be that they would need to go through an ACAT assessment to get another form of service—for instance, a CAHP, a care at home package. So if this process has decided that they are no longer eligible, for whatever reason, the minister is suggesting in part of this response that they need to go through an ACAT assessment for that purpose—that is, not to stay where they are but to go into an entirely different package, which would be a care at home package through the aged-care system.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion there. I thank the member for her intervention. As I said, I am not really complaining so much as bringing to the attention of people the fact that we need to be so sensitive and so careful when we are dealing with people in this category. I know for all intents and purposes we all share that view, but occasionally we need to have a reminder that, whatever we need to do to look after these folk, we should do. In the end, I hope that these people have the service that they were getting reinstated or that they can slide across as seamlessly as possible—and with all the help they need—into what is considered to be a more appropriate service, be that as it may. I thank the chamber for its attention.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In support of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, which is a bill to amend the law relating to veterans entitlements and military rehabilitation and compensation and for other purposes, I wish to make a few remarks about the nation’s obligation to those that serve in the defence forces.

Some 21 years ago I concluded a 13-year period of my life when I worked for the then department of repatriation. I was of a fortunate generation of officers of that department in that, for that 13 years, we did not have forces on active duty. We had defence personnel involved in peacekeeping missions in a number of places around the world, but of course now in the first decade of the 21st century we operate in a completely different environment. We have several contingents of defence personnel very much on the front line. So the type of danger that defence personnel are in is greatly different. We also have a greater awareness of our obligation to those employed in our defence forces but not on active service, because there have been a number of accidents of an occupational health and safety nature in peacetime movements and the like that we have learnt a lot from.

I am also from a generation that is proud to indicate that it marched in moratorium marches. I am of a generation whose marble was in the last ballot of conscription to take place—a ballot that did not have any use because that intake was never taken up. But I am also of a generation that did not see active participation in protests against the government’s decision to send forces overseas and for the way in which those returning ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen were treated. I admit that at the time I did not understand the conditions that confronted those returning ex-defence personnel. I think that as a nation we should be genuinely ashamed of the way in which those people were treated when they returned.

I am pleased that in the intervening nearly 40 years, especially for the Vietnam conflict, many processes have taken place that have healed that open sore. It is, of course, interesting that sometimes Korean vets do not think that they have yet seen similar actions and can sometimes be of the opinion that they are beginning to be a forgotten generation of our returned service men and women. But the lessons that we learnt through those actions should dictate the way in which we are able to treat and administer those pieces of legislation that deal with proper compensation and proper recognition of the sacrifices made.

To the extent that this piece of legislation tidies up a number of items and brings into line some of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act measures with the Social Security Act and the like, the opposition has no great problem with it. But one aspect that goes to the way in which the ex-service community see themselves being treated relates to the length of time that is taken for the assessment of claims. This was first brought to my attention by a welfare officer at one of the local RSLs that service the community that is covered by the electorate of Scullin. I suppose from my past career within the department I have an understanding of the proper way in which these things have to be assessed. The act has changed drastically since my time. The references to the way in which these things are assessed have changed dramatically. But I would have hoped that that made it a simpler task to ensure that claims are processed within the proper periods. This is a matter that the member for Bruce, the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, touched upon.

When we look at the last annual report of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs—the 2005-06 annual report—we find that, under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the average time taken for processing primary injury claims has blown out from 90 to 146 days, up 62 per cent from the time taken in 2004-05. According to the figures given, we find that the time for processing new impairment claims has increased from 26 to 130 days. Perhaps that is a statistical anomaly because it is a small number of claims, and we might not dwell too much on that. However, the average time taken to process primary compensation claims under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act was 106 days, a 40 per cent increase over a target that had been set of 75 days.

These are the things that are causing concern in the community. As I said, there are from time to time reasons that these things take a while. It is not being churlish to observe that we see there has been a reduction of one-eighth in the number of claims processing staff. It appears there was no mention in the budget of any increase in the number of staff. I raise these matters not for the sake of political point-scoring but to indicate that, when things like this lead to a perception that veterans are not being treated with the importance they deserve, it rolls on to concerns about a whole host of matters. We should have learnt the lesson that, no matter how hard we try to have proper recognition of the service given, no matter how often we say that we treat that service as being important, we have to make sure that our actions indicate that.

At one of the ceremonies for the Australian Defence Medal recently, I had a chat to a man who had served in the Royal Navy. He had had the misfortune of being in the vicinity of both collisions of the HMAS Melbourne. What was interesting about the discussion was that, while this was a peacetime activity, it still gave him great distress in a psychological sense because there was no discussion, debriefing and counselling after the incidents. He has vivid memories of retrieving bodies and the like. These are, as I said, important matters that we have to make sure that we understand so that we can do the right thing.

He had another interesting beef that I think is ongoing at the moment. He was one of the guys who were asked to go in and clean—I describe them as bilge tanks; there is probably some other technical term—within the outer skin of the ship and the inner skin. To describe his working conditions as Dickensian is probably raising them up because at least the chimney sweeps were of a small stature. I do not think this man was of a small stature, but they hauled themselves down, attached to the manhole by a rope. They had to be careful of the conditions because of the build-up of gases and different substances. As I understand it, there is an ongoing discussion about whether the conditions exposed them to a variety of chemicals that have been injurious to health and it is something that I have asked him to give me further detail on. I hope to be able to return to that at some other time.

The other thing that I have to observe is that for once, by comparison to the United States, I think we can hold our head high. I refer to the recent discussion of the treatment of US returned service people in their veterans administration hospitals, which is nothing short of scandalous. I do not refer to this because the member for Mackellar is in the chamber but I think the checks and balances that the Australian parliament has in dwelling on the actions of departments would have picked up the types of things that we saw in the United States much earlier than was the case in the United States. However, it appears there might have been a small deception of US Senate committees about the way in which the veterans affairs hospital in Washington was being administered.

I think it is very important, without pointing a finger and accusing people of not doing the right thing, that we do have these processes so that we can indicate our concern. I hope that the minister and, through the minister, the department would see my comments about the blow-out in processing times in that light. As I said, at the end of the day you can have a collection of cases that might be more difficult than another collection of cases. When we are dealing with a community that is very sensitive to the way that it is treated—it is in the context of political decisions of the government, for instance, not to put in place indexation of benefits and the like, which is in a different sphere of political discussion—we must make sure that the perception is not that because of laxity in the blow-out of times we in some way do not recognise the service.

With the way that modern warfare is conducted, a whole new range of pressures is being placed on members who are in active service and we must ensure that we keep cognisant of those new pressures. There may be people who, because of great fortune, do not see themselves as being directly under fire, but that pressure of not knowing what is around the corner is as real as the pressure experienced when under direct fire. That sort of pressure is seen to exist in all conflicts and it becomes even greater in the types of conflicts that Australian troops are involved in at the moment, where there is uncertainty about who the enemy really is and whether they are dealing with friend or foe. So I think people’s psychological wellness should be paramount.

I was in the department when the Vietnam Veterans’ Counselling Service first commenced. I think that was one of the first steps in bridging the gap between the perception that Vietnam vets were not accepted by the community and the fact that people wanted to reach out to them and understand the types of pressures they had confronted and the type of assistance they needed. I hope that we continue to do that for all generations and for waves of service personnel that return from involvement in conflict.

Finally, I wish to say—and this probably is completely off the piece of legislation before us—that I still have a little concern about the purchasing practices of Defence and making sure that Defence personnel, especially on active service, are adequately kitted up and given the right equipment. But that again is a debate for another day. I simply conclude that I am very proud of the tradition, which has continued in a bipartisan manner, of the repatriation system, now called the veterans affairs system. I hope that the minister takes on board our concerns about processing times. I hope that, in a political sense, the government, when sharing the bounty it holds in its coffers, will recognise that the veterans community see themselves as deserving of additional resource.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to rise on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. Firstly, I indicate that I support the bill. However, in doing so, I reserve the right to make some criticisms of the way it appears that administration of certain claims relating to a departmental undertaking relating to veterans has occurred, particularly when looking at the clients of that department. The clients of that department are people who have served this country well. They have taken upon themselves the security of this nation, in a range of different capacities, in various theatres overseas. I think veterans expect probably no more or no less than to be treated decently.

It is of concern when we find that, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, the processing of veterans claims is taking in the order of 106 days, with the target position being 65 days. That is a difference of about 40 per cent between the targeted time for processing and the actual time taken. For most businesses, that would be of concern. However, in a business that is there to service the veterans of this nation, I think it is not simply a concern; it is unjust. Without putting too fine a point on it or weighing that criticism, I think that is one of those things we need to do better for the people who have performed such a wonderful task for this country.

By the way, it is not just veterans who have served in the armed forces overseas. Do not forget that, since 1964, something like 2,000 police officers have served in peacekeeping operations overseas, starting with operations in Cyprus and more recently those in East Timor and other locations. Having been seconded from the police forces of the various states, territories and, indeed, the Commonwealth and serving in those theatres, those officers were also covered by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act for their period of operations while overseas. So it is not just military people who are only too deserving of being treated appropriately under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act but also those police officers who have served this country well, as they have taken a lead role in many respects in peacekeeping operations.

From my discussions with Vietnam vets from my electorate, the Ingleburn RSL sub-branch and Mr Max Chin from Dredges Cottage in Campbelltown, you would not class veterans as whingers. They are people who are there to support their colleagues—they are very collegiate in the way they approach that. They are very forthright and no doubt the department will recall how forthright these guys can be but, quite frankly, they stick up for one another as they probably did in times of hostilities. They are not whingers. They simply want a fair go and they want to be treated with respect and dignity. One of the things they have laboured is the delays in processing claims by the department and that concerns not only them in terms of the operations they provide locally but the support mechanism they afford to their members in those respective locations.

I take it that most people are across the fact that last night the government announced that there will be an increase in the TPI rate, the special rate and the intermediate rate for veteran disability of $50 and $25 per fortnight respectively. I have to say that is welcome. I also draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that the pension entitlement for these people has not been indexed; it has been eroded and, as a consequence, has very much affected the purchasing power—to use a crude term—of these veterans. It is something that they have been quite critical of. Bear in mind that I am speaking of people who have served this country in the Second World War, the Korean War, the Malayan and the Vietnam engagements, the Gulf War, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to be sensitive to this.

When veterans go on a veterans entitlement pension, they should not be seen as out of sight, out of mind. They are people who deserve the highest respect that we can give them as a consequence of the service they have provided, and it is only proper that we reward them appropriately. That is why Labor have announced only very recently that, from our first budget, we will be indexing the pension entitlement for these people, which will make sure that their pensions are not eroded and that they are treated with dignity and respect. I think that is something that should stay very much at the front and centre of the mind of the legislature when we are talking about making laws affecting people who have already committed themselves rather heavily for this country.

It pains me to report that in 1997, for instance, the special rate for a disability pension represented 46.3 per cent of the total average male weekly earnings. Now a person on that same pension is earning only 42.9 per cent of the total average male weekly earnings. It has regrettably been allowed to simply fade away—out of sight, out of mind. Whilst I welcome what occurred in the budget last night to make some redress to that, this must be taken into the future and must be subject to indexation. I support the initiatives taken by Kevin Rudd and Alan Griffin, the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, in committing Labor to a position of restoring that fundamental aspect of dignity and respect for the veterans of this nation.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) adjourned.