Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008 and would observe from the outset that it would appear to be a benign bill. Consequently, we agreed to its coming here into the Main Committee for the debate on the second reading and subsequent stages of the bill’s passage. Indeed, the first parts of the bill are pretty benign. Schedule 1 makes amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 to give effect to revised arrangements for entering into agreements with the governments of certain other countries in relation to the payment of pensions and the provision of assistance and benefits to eligible persons. The amendments are to authorise the use of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of pensions and the provision of assistance and benefits to eligible persons authorised under the agreements entered into under the VEA—a sensible arrangement.

The strict provision that was required before—that the amount of money that can be paid to persons covered by the agreement can only be exactly the same as they would be entitled to in their country of origin or the country from which they came—was very cumbersome to administer because of the difference between the way benefits are paid in other countries and the way we pay them here. Schedule 1 of the bill authorises that the payments to be made do not any longer have to be strictly equal to what they would receive in that other country.

Schedule 1 also provides that, instead of the Governor-General making the arrangements and entering into agreements with other countries, it will now be the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, which is more in line with the way other agreements are struck. The maximum reimbursement for the costs associated with providing benefits will continue to be provided for in the agreements negotiated, and the country with whom the agreement is negotiated will of course reimburse the Australian government for the money that they have expended.

Schedule 2 of the bill deals with another important area—that is, dealing with Commonwealth and Federal Police who served at Maralinga. The question of nuclear testing has been a vexed one for a long time here in Australia—not only at Maralinga but also at Montebello. These issues have been looked at, debated and inquired about for a long period of time.

Under this bill it is proposed that the period for which a person can be determined to be a nuclear test participant, who is then eligible for treatment for cancer and the accompanying travel expenses, be extended from 30 April 1965 to 30 June 1988. That means that someone with cancer who was a participant at Maralinga at that time will be eligible to have the cost of their treatment covered and their incidental travelling costs as well. There is a further provision that says that those persons who have had treatment but were not until now deemed eligible persons will be able to claim costs for treatment and travelling expenses retrospectively to 19 June 2006. There is only a six-month window of opportunity for persons affected by this provision to actually apply for that reimbursement.

The question of Montebello is still unresolved. It has been addressed by many an inquiry. I think the government ought to put its mind to Montebello. It has been said that many people at Montebello were not sufficiently close. There is more evidence starting to emerge that they were. I think it is a matter that should be looked at.

Back to the bill itself: schedule 3 amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to correct minor errors and anomalies in the act. That looks pretty benign. That looks okay. Well, that is what I thought. The explanatory memorandum says:

Item 2 amends the definition of the number of days in section 196 of the MRCA, to recognise that some persons may have worked for more or less than 5 days a week, when working out the numbers of days of entitlement to compensation. Currently, the calculation of the number of days of compensation entitlement may provide for an incorrect result in cases where persons worked for more than or less than 5 days a week.

That sounds pretty benign. It sounds like we are just making a minor adjustment and that nobody would be particularly disadvantaged.

A funny thing happened. Somebody slipped me a bit of paper. That bit of paper has the heading on it ‘Caucus-in-confidence’. Whereas the minister did not enlighten the parliament, the people or veterans as to what these amendments meant, the caucus was duly informed. The caucus was informed in the following terms:

A part week payment is calculated on the basis of the proportion of a week that the person is deemed to have been working prior to their incapacity. As set out in subsection 196(3) of the MRCA. Where section 196(3)(c) applies, the requirement to use 5 days is not always reflective of a person’s actual work patterns. The following is an example that illustrates this.

What actually happens now? The existing act says that you work on a five-day basis. That is what the act says. That is what people debated. That is what has been the law, and that is how people have applied the law. Now this amendment actually amounts to a savings measure. Did we hear about that in the debate? Certainly not.

Let me tell you how it will disadvantage people. Client X is a reservist who is incapacitated for four days per week. He usually works six days per week and earns $720 gross for his six days of work, or $120 per day worked. Using the current formula applicable under section 196(3)(c) his entitlement for the above period would be four-fifths of $720. That equals $576 gross per week for four days at the rate of $144 per week.

What will happen if this amendment goes through? Client X is a reservist who is incapacitated for four days a week. He usually works six days a week and earns $720 gross for his six days work, or $120 per day—exactly the same situation. As such, the compensation payable would reflect client X’s actual loss. This would be worked out by the following formula: four-sixths times 720 equals $480 gross per week for four days at $120 per day, X’s actual daily rate. The difference in this case is the difference between $576 and $480; in other words, $96 a week. A nice little savings earner hidden away in the explanatory memorandum. It hides it nicely—the words are benign: ‘This is a non-controversial bill.’ But when I happened to get this little bit of paper slipped to me, we start to see that it is going to further disadvantage veterans.

This is a government which said lots of things about veterans. It said: ‘We will stand up for veterans. We will always have a Department of Veterans’ Affairs.’ Yet, the language in the bill talks about this legislation ‘further aligning the VEA with social security law’. One thing that the opposition stands for very firmly and very strongly is that veterans entitlements should never be turned into social security, that veterans entitlements come from a contract between the nation and the people who serve the Australian nation in uniform, and that those people are entitled to believe that we the people of Australia will look after them for the service that they have given. That has been the way since the first repatriation act; it has continued to be the way, but now we slip in language like, ‘This will bring it further into alignment with social security law.’

Then we start to look at the savings measures in the budget on the pension for spouses of those entitled to a veteran’s pension. At the present time spouses can receive a pension at 50 years of age but that is suddenly going to leap to 58.5 years. A nice little savings earner here, too. In other words, people coming back from service in Iraq, Afghanistan, Timor-Leste or the Solomons might think that they can retire and their spouse could be entitled to that service pension as well. Oh, no. They are going to have to wait another 8½ years. What if you had been budgeting for that in your retirement plans? Let us take the analogy of the way in which we planned the movement in the age pension from 60 years for women to 65 years to be the same as for men. We have taken over a decade to see any movement at all. It has been slow and gradual, so it was not seen to be mean and picky. But in one hit service people are to be disadvantaged. Instead of being entitled at 50 years of age, those women will now be entitled at 58.5 years. That makes a hell of a difference to people’s budgets.

Then we come to the other nice little earner in savings. On this side of the chamber we are very much in favour of marriage; we like to promote it. Presently, if a man and a woman who are married to each other have for whatever reason separated—there can be myriad reasons as to why serving personnel and their spouse may choose to separate; there may be all sorts of injuries, mental injuries, that may have perpetuated from their service—the spouse can receive the spouse’s pension. So they have agreed to this arrangement. Now, this mean and tricky little government comes along and says, ‘When you have been separated for 12 months, we are going to chop out the spouse’s pension.’ Charming! And guess what—they say that will save $77.8 million over four years. Isn’t that wonderful!

But then if you read Budget Paper No. 2, it tells you a bit more. Budget Paper No. 2 tells you that actually the saving to the budget will only really amount to $33.9 million because the remainder, $39.4 million, will go into the social security department—by whatever name we call it these days—because they will go on ordinary social welfare. And another $4.4 million over four years will be spent because some of them will be sent back onto Newstart. We are taking away veterans entitlements and putting them into social security—welfare.

This government has said—in its speech, when it does not have to be answerable—that this government is kind and generous to veterans. Really? I say that the government is mean and picky: taking away from individuals who have been planning, thinking that these were their entitlements, and turning them into welfare recipients—everything that the opposition is utterly opposed to. We have said, and given a commitment—and always will—that veterans are entitled to their entitlements, not as welfare recipients but because of the contract that we as a nation strike with our serving personnel.

So I go back to this other nice little earner. I will remind you of what the explanatory memorandum says; see if you would have picked up that benefits available to veterans were going to be cut back. This is what the explanatory memorandum says:

Item 2 amends the definition of the number of days in section 196 of the MRCA, to recognise that some persons may have worked for more or less than 5 days a week, when working out the numbers of days of entitlement to compensation. Currently, the calculation of the number of days of compensation entitlement may provide for an incorrect result in cases where persons worked for more than or less than 5 days a week.

You would think that that was pretty benign, wouldn’t you? But if you really got down and got lucky enough to get the piece of paper that came my way, you would think again. And every one of those members of the Labor caucus knew what this bill did—every one of them! How many of you in the Labor Party spoke out against it? How many of you complained? How many of you have gone back to your veterans and told them that that is what you are going to do to them? One? Two? None?

So, when we come to dealing with legislation, I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the opposition is hampered by having been stripped of resources by the Labor government—our resources have been cut back by 30 per cent, so that we have fewer and fewer staff with which to do the work of interrogating what goes on in these documents—and by having less and less time, because bills are thrust in at a great rate of knots, all because the government want to appear to be doing something. Yet we are in a situation where every bill requires more scrutiny, for the simple reason that you do not know what is hidden in them, because the ways in which they are presented in the second reading speeches and, indeed, for that matter, in the explanatory memoranda, are not fair dinkum.

Let us look at how serious that is. The Acts Interpretation Act says that when a judge is making a determination he is entitled to look at three documents that come from this place: the act itself, the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech. They are the sources that are meant to tell our court, if there is a dispute, what it is the legislation was meant to do. But, if you read the act, the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech, unless you have a miraculous insight you will not pick it up. So here is a mechanism of subterfuge being used.

The government says, out here, that they will not hurt veterans. And yet I have just given you three examples that we have managed to ascertain are definitely aimed against veterans. I ask the question of the government: why does this Prime Minister break his promise to veterans that he will not turn veterans entitlements into social welfare? Because that is precisely and exactly what he is doing—and doing it sneakily and nastily. I was talking to a Vietnam veteran on the phone this afternoon. They are very angry. They are very angry that they have been duped. And they are not even aware of this one yet.

So there are many issues that we have to deal with in opposition. The government cut back the resources for the opposition by 30 per cent, so that we have 30 per cent fewer staff to do the interrogatory work that you the government had in opposition—30 per cent fewer people than you had in order to do the job that we are now asked to do. Is that reasonable for the Australian people? Is it reasonable that you should put this burden on us in a way that we have accepted—we interrogate well—but in the way it is now being portrayed?

I simply say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there should be a whole caucus of Labor Party members who have veterans in their electorate whom they have not spoken out about and tried to get something done for—because, quite clearly, the way the act was written it was meant to be that way. Yet it is dressed up in the language that, ‘We are just going to make a minor little twitch here,’ which in fact is going to result in somebody, in this example given to the caucus, receiving $96 a week less—that is what it says on this piece of paper—than they would have been entitled to under the old act. So he is actually taking away veterans’ entitlements.

As well as that, there is a cut in staff for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs of 196 people. In reality, if you read the annual report of Veterans’ Affairs then you will see, of course, that veterans are dying and that the number is less. But, if you read the annual report, you will also see that each veteran needs more attention and has more incidents of health care. In other words, the system is not going to be less difficult to administer but, indeed, more difficult to administer.

In addition, if you take a look at the War Memorial, the favourite attraction in this capital city of ours—free for people to go into, with a magnificent display, a wonderful research department and a curating department—it functions as something of which we can all be proud. At this time, we have to give credit to the government. It implemented the plans that the previous, Howard government had put in place to honour the veterans of the battles of Coral and Balmoral. In fact, the government went ahead and gave the reception. We then had the commemorative service at the Australian Vietnam Forces National Memorial, and it was done very well. But, at exactly that time, when there is more and more interest in what veterans have achieved and in what veterans’ stories are—people want to know what their stories are; they want to know more about each battle—the one place that is going to record all that and give it to the people, the War Memorial, has had a cut of eight staff. These are tricky, mean, nasty little cuts. Eight staff have been cut from the War Memorial. Who is going to go—a researcher, somebody who is able to do the magnificent displays? Who is going to be considered not of any more value to the War Memorial and that magnificent product they put out?

When we look at the words of the Prime Minister—that he honours veterans—and he stands up to read his speech to them and tells them how valued they are, why isn’t it mirrored in the budget? I listen to the Prime Minister. I listened to him before the election when he said the buck stops with him. That is what he said. He said that he was going to be a Prime Minister who was going to make laws for working families. Well, we have suddenly learned precisely what that is, haven’t we? The majority of veterans are no longer working families. The majority of veterans are people who have retired; they are no longer in the paid workforce. The majority of veterans are people who fall outside the parameters of that definition of ‘working families’. What is becoming abundantly clear from this government over there is that, if you are not part of a narrow definition of ‘working families’, you are out on the scrap heap.

Take my retired veterans, for instance, who go every week to buy their petrol at the low end of the petrol cycle. They buy their petrol at the lowest price that is available to them, because every cent matters. They are on fixed incomes; they have got fixed budgets. And yet we are going to have Fuelwatch, which is going to get rid of the peaks and the troughs in the cycle and average it out, even out the bumps. If you are somebody like the Prime Minister, you do not care what you pay for your petrol because, after all, the taxpayer is going to pay for that. If you are somebody who is working for a big corporation, you do not care what you are going to pay for your petrol; you will buy it at whatever time is suitable for you.

The irony is that the person who does not care what they pay will actually pay less, because the averaging will get rid of the top price. So they will not have to pay that top price anymore. But if you are someone who is on a fixed income—somebody for whom every cent matters; who takes their shopper docket and gets in the queue every Tuesday night—you are going to be told that this government’s Fuelwatch will put the price up. Those people are being tricked once again—and veterans fall very much into that category. But it will not affect the working family who might have their expenses paid. So the Prime Minister is making laws for working families! It is just that there are so many people who do not fit his narrow little definition any more—and he cares less for them.

As we talk to this Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008, it seems like an innocuous little bill. My goodness me! You would not think there was anything harmful in that, would you? Neither did we, and so we agreed that we could have this debate up here in the Main Committee because the bill was not contentious. But I just got slipped a little bit of paper that told me what was really going into the bill and now I can share that with the rest of the Australian people. I ask the government: how many other sneaky little bits of legislation have we got coming our way? How many other items are there that were not apparent from the official published material, for which we need more staff to assist with interrogation work? The library is pretty overburdened at the moment because the Prime Minister cut back our staffing arrangements by 30 per cent. So we have 30 per cent less assistance than you had when you were able to build a case to say that you were going to bring down interest rates, bring down petrol prices and bring down the cost of grocery prices. You had 30 more staff that you could spread that work around.

So there we are! Veterans are being penalised in this bill. We found out that the formula is to be changed so that a veteran who applies after this amendment is passed will get less than a veteran with the same sort injury and the same sort of condition is receiving now. Is that fair? Would we think that was fair? No way! It is very important that this is disclosed to the veterans community. If the government members on the other side of the chamber had any sense of decency they would be out there letting their own veteran constituents know that they were being duped by a government that said it would never turn veterans entitlements into welfare payments. Yet that is what the budget does. Here we have a reduction of entitlements, all in the name of a minor adjustment to a little section of the act.

I say to you that today is a shameful day and it is important that people are made aware of what is being done so that they may take some action themselves and come to know better what this government is really like. After all, it was the Prime Minister who said that the buck stops with him. I do not think it stops with Jeeves; I think it is with him. He has to wear the falsehoods that he perpetrates on the veterans community. As we said from the time that we agreed to it, we will not be opposing the bill, but it is with a sense of great sadness that we will now have to work to find ways to get things changed so that people can have their entitlements back.

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008. This bill aims to improve the process of Australia’s repatriation system. The bill sets out a number of amendments to veterans affairs legislation to improve administrative arrangements, correct some minor errors and, where appropriate, further align the Veterans’ Entitlement Act with social security law. The measures in this bill, along with the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008, demonstrate this government’s determination to honour its commitment to look after the veteran community and their families and to deliver improved services to them in Australia.

The Rudd Labor government recognises and acknowledges the great contribution our veteran community have made to the nation and the important role they play in our communities. Another couple of government initiatives deserve mention in this regard. The first of these initiatives is the veteran and community grants announced by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin, on 21 May 2008. I would like to commend the government on the $829,000 commitment to funding 77 local projects across the country to improve community support for Australia’s veterans. The funding will assist veterans to access skills programs aimed at keeping them independent and active. Since last year’s federal election the Rudd Labor government has funded more than $1.5 million in grants to local community organisations who offer programs to support veterans and their dependants.

The other initiative that I want to commend the minister for is the $11½ million Vietnam Veterans’ Family Study, a significant research program into the health problems that have occurred as a result of service in Vietnam, along with protective factors and characteristics that help build resilience in the families of veterans. This research needs to involve large numbers of participants. Invitations have been or are being sent to two key groups: the service personnel who were deployed to Vietnam and those who stayed at home. The success of this world first research lies in recruiting sufficient numbers of Vietnam veterans’ families and the families of those who were not deployed to participate, and I urge them to do so. The study is expected to be finalised in 2016 and will pave the way for future research for younger veterans and their families from more recent deployments such as East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let me return to the substance of the bill before the House, the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008. The bill will provide greater flexibility with the international agreements already in existence with other countries, meaning that overseas veterans who are legal residents of Australia and who have the requisite qualifying service will be extended the appropriate level of care and income support payments. While it will continue to remain the responsibility of the veterans’ respective foreign governments to pay the veterans entitlements, this amendment will allow the cost of their benefits and assistance to be covered by the Consolidated Revenue Fund during the cost recovery process.

Income and assets tests under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Social Security Act 1991 will be more closely aligned in two principal ways: the first will exclude certain scholarships awarded on or after 1 September 1990 from the definition of income, and the second will exclude the disability expenses maintenance that is paid to parents with a disabled child. The bill will also amend the Veterans’ Entitlements Act by excluding foregone rental income from the deprivation provisions of the income test. In other words, an income support pensioner opting not to receive rental income or choosing to receive a lesser amount of rental income from a family member will no longer be penalised as a consequence. In addition to that, a further amendment will exclude any value rights or interests held by any person or group or community where that person is a member in respect of native title rights, and amounts that any person has received from the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust.

Importantly, this bill will also amend the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. These amendments give effect to the findings of the 2006 Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry that were not acted on by the previous government. It will extend the period for which Commonwealth and Australian Federal Police can be considered as nuclear test participants at Maralinga from 30 April 1965 to 30 June 1988. There is scientific evidence that officers who patrolled the Maralinga exclusion zone were exposed to possible contamination until 1988. They will be entitled to be reimbursed for treatment and travel costs backdated to 19 June 2006, when eligibility for cancer treatment, testing and associated travel expenses commenced under the act for nuclear test participants. It is estimated that up to 100 officers may be eligible to receive assistance under this extension, and justice is served by ensuring that these officers, who patrolled the nuclear test sites, are eligible to receive assistance.

I referred earlier to the election commitments made by Labor. I am pleased that an earlier bill has seen some of these reforms put before the House: the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. There were three significant measures proposed in that legislation. Firstly, there was the automatic grant of war widows or war widowers pensions to widows and widowers of veterans or members in receipt of temporary special rate or immediate rate disability pension immediately before their death. Secondly, it extended the income support supplement to all war widows and war widowers under qualifying age without dependants. Thirdly, it extended disability pension bereavement payments in respect of single veterans or members in receipt of special rate or extreme disablement adjustment disability pension who die without sufficient assets to pay for a funeral. As I said, these measures, along with this bill before the House, demonstrate the government’s determination to honour its commitments to look after the veteran community and their families and to deliver improved services to them.

I could speak longer on the bill but, in conclusion, I would like to record my thanks to and appreciation of my local RSL clubs for their fine services commemorating Anzac Day this year. I was fortunate to join with them for these ceremonies. The services conducted by the Darling Range RSL, the Gosnells RSL and the Bellevue RSL were better attended than those in past years. This is in no small measure the result of work these organisations do in the community as well as the direct result of the enormous pride and respect the Australian community has for our Defence Force personnel, past and present. I especially wish to acknowledge and thank our combat troops who are coming home from Iraq for their service. I commend the bill to the House.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was intending to rise to support the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008 on the premise that this was a incontestable bill, that it would slide quietly and easily through the Main Committee, until a caucus-in-confidence document that was slipped to the shadow minister for veterans affairs was presented to me. Let me speak on behalf of the veterans community, not only as a member of the opposition but as someone with an Australian Service Medal who is indeed a veteran. The veteran community has a very special place in our hearts. They are special not for any one reason but for a whole host of different and unique reasons that many people who have not walked the path may not understand. Veterans joined, trained, served, endured, fought and many times suffered whilst we, the recipients of their service, enjoyed the benefits—notably, freedom.

Veterans in many parts know the cruel injustices of conflict, war and military operations, including peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace-enforcing. They know the consequences on the field of operations, and with loved ones at home they are separated from, yet they serve regardless. Many of them serve in places of great fear, knowing full well that courage is just fear hanging on a minute longer—a place of bullets and bombs, and indeed biscuits and tins, of unhygienic conditions, of living in tents, of outdoors, of night operations, of difficult terrain and different weather. It is not just that they are tremendously brave and self-sacrificing; it is that they care so much more about their country than at times about themselves.

In such an environment I find it incredibly difficult to be faced with the prospect of reading the caucus-in-confidence document, which makes it very clear that every member of the government knew that in this supposedly uncontentious bill was hidden a change. For any reservist or part-time soldier who was injured and received compensation, rather than that compensation being worked out at a normal five-day week, it will now be pro rata, based on their previous service. And the example given in the caucus-in-confidence document made it very clear that, if a veteran or a reserve veteran was injured in conflict or in operations but was only doing four days a week, they would get four-fifths of the compensation payout.

What is even more appalling is that the caucus-in-confidence document made the point that savings will be small but are likely to be around $25,000. That is a saving of $25,000 taken from an injured digger—$25,000 taken because you want an injured reserve soldier to not receive compensation for five days a week; you want to pro-rata it down to what they served. When this particularly heinous bill passes, it will create an environment where some veterans will be on one measure and others will be on a different measure. Veterans affairs compensation—veterans pensions and payments—is not welfare, as those who have had the courage to put on a uniform and serve know full well. To hide in this bill a saving of $25,000 to punish a part-time veteran who is injured is an absolute and utter disgrace. Compounding the disgrace are two measures we saw in the budget: increasing the pension age for a partner from 50 to 58½, to save $33 million, and ensuring that the ex-partner of a veteran receives a pension for only 12 months following their separation, to save $77 million—$110 million ripped from the very people who fought to give you the freedom to stand up and make a law in this place.

On top of that, we go down to the pecuniary depths of ripping out $25,000 of a range of veterans by pro-rata-ing what a reservist would receive if they were injured. I was to give a speech regarding the changes to this legislation and what was going through; I suggest that the speech is worthless in the face of what this government is trying to do. I make it my personal pledge, working in consultation with the other members of the opposition and indeed the shadow spokesman for veterans affairs, to ensure that every veteran in this country knows how this was snuck through, how the caucus-in-confidence document shows every member of the government knew about it, how the minister did not cover it in the second reading speech and how this government snuck it into this chamber within an ‘uncontroversial’ bill. It is an absolute and utter disgrace. How dare you do that to people who had the courage to fight for you! You should be ashamed to be in the House this day. I am ashamed to be finding out through the back door about changes of legislation in this way. I thought the government was better than this.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the honourable member for Fadden to direct his remarks through the chair in future.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I know that the veterans in my electorate of Blair, particularly in Ipswich, welcome the legislation that has passed recently. They also welcome the commitment made by the Labor Party during the campaign that has been honoured in terms of the deseal-reseal inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which is being headed up by Arch Bevis. And I know the veterans in my community will welcome this legislation before the House.

This bill amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to provide for the use of consolidated revenue to cover the health treatment costs of Allied veterans while these costs are being reimbursed by the country for which the Allied veterans served. There are a lot of Allied veterans in my community—I saw them when I visited nine Anzac Day services on Anzac Day this year. They spoke to me then about the challenges of being veterans. We honour those Allied veterans who fought with us in all wars, and we should treat them in the same way we treat our own veterans.

A review of the previous arrangement reveals that the use of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act was not lawful as those funds were appropriated for the provision of services to Australian veterans only. This oversight is being corrected in the bill. This bill will enable the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, instead of the Governor-General, to enter into arrangements and remove the restriction limiting assistance and benefits to overseas veterans. The amendment will remove from the Veterans’ Entitlements Act restrictions limiting assistance and benefits so that overseas veterans can be treated here in Australia as they would be elsewhere.

Australia has international agreements with Allied countries for the provision of income support payments to veterans who serve in the armed forces of Allied countries but who now reside in Australia—the most common form of this income support being the service pension. This means that Allied veterans with qualifying war service who are legal residents of Australia can be paid a service pension in Australia under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. However, under the current legislation, responsibility for service related health and compensation needs of Allied veterans or any other non-Australian veteran rests with the country whose armed services they served in. Currently, medical treatment for Allied veterans is provided under agreements between Australia and each Allied country for accepted war service caused medical conditions or disability.

We have a gold card system here in Australia, and it is a wonderful system—which I know those veterans in my community appreciate very much. But the health coverage provided by other Allied countries may not be the same as that provided for Australian veterans. The proposed amendment will allow coverage for the cost of Allied veterans to be provided out of consolidated revenue. This reimbursement will be sought from the country for whom the Allied veteran served. The amendment does not really change the source of the funds; it just changes the process of recovery. It means that the funds will be used from our consolidated revenue and then sought from the veteran’s service country. There will be no financial impact as a result, but the amendment is critical because it reflects the various ways veterans health services are delivered in different countries. Strict compliance with the requirement for the same assistance is problematic, as inevitably countries have different systems for delivering services to veterans. As I say, we want to treat veterans from our Allied partners in Australia same way we treat our own veterans.

I support this amending legislation because the existing legislation is very much based on the Repatriation Act 1920. This is quite extraordinary. The current law does not acknowledge the significant advances in administration, policy and practices over the last 60 years. The bill will enable the minister to enter into arrangements for best business practices for the business and eligible overseas veterans. I see that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is here in the chamber. I congratulate him for the grants that we saw and I am sure that the veteran community in south-east Queensland will very much appreciate the assistance.

The bill also excludes from the definition of ‘income’ for the purposes of the income test certain scholarships awarded on or after 1 September 1990 and disability expenses maintenance paid to parents with disabled children. As I say, the bill seeks to amend the income test provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to make it correlate to the Social Security Act. The longstanding practice has been that the provision should be consistent and equitable. So the bill seeks to amend the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to exempt as income under the income test payments of an approved scholarship applied to means-tested income support payments under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.

I think one of the most interesting things is the amendment with respect to the rental income provision. The bill seeks to amend the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to align it with the deprivation provisions in the Social Security Act. The exclusion of forgone rent from family members from the deprivation provisions of the income test will mean that those income support pensioners who assist their families with accommodation will no longer be penalised for this action. We see a lot of people who really want to help their children but for whom income forgone by way of abatement in rent means that they themselves suffer. This legislation will have a big impact. It will assist struggling families in terms of accommodation and it will also help the veteran community.

As the previous speaker, the member for Hasluck, said, there is an initiative in terms of Australian participation in British nuclear testing and a fairer treatment for Commonwealth Police who were involved in nuclear test participation from 1 May 1965 to 30 June 1988 for the purpose of eligibility for cancer screening and cancer treatment under the relevant legislation—that is, the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. We are pleased about this amendment because a 2006 Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry recommended these changes but, regrettably, the Howard government failed to act.

Another important reform, the last one upon which I wish to touch, is the changes to the existing legislation concerning war widow and war widower pensions. The bill seeks to amend references to the rate of war widow pension used to calculate a payment rate of compensation where a partner of a deceased member chooses to receive weekly payments of compensation. The current references to the rate of war widow pension paid under the current legislation, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, do include the rate of war widow pension but not the whole of the amount paid to the war widow pension recipient. Included as a part of the war widow pension rate is a separate pension supplement amount, agreed by the then government, the Howard government—with the Democrats support, by the way, with respect to the goods and service tax agreement that commenced on 1 July 2000. Thereafter, the extra pension supplement amount has been separately indexed twice a year according to the CPI and is paid in addition to the base rate of the war widow pension. The base rate of the war widow pension is indexed to both movements in the CPI and movements in the male total average weekly earnings—whichever provides the greater increase. This amendment will mean that, where a calculation of the weekly payment rate of compensation is made based on the war widow pension rate, the calculation will include references to both the base war widow pension rate and also the pension supplement amount.

My constituents will benefit from that—there are many war widows and war widowers in the federal seat of Blair. There is a very big veterans community in Ipswich. It is a place where veterans have chosen to live after being based at Amberley and fighting long and hard for our country. I honour the contribution they make in all of the things I have talked about, the reseal-deseal issue and the practical support they give through their RSLs. This amending legislation will help them with their income and their entitlements, and it is a credit to the minister that this omnibus legislation is going through, because it will make a practical difference to assist members of my community in the federal seat of Blair. I commend the minister for the bill.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the many years before I came to this place, I served for 15 as an officer in the Army and, before that, for the better part of two years within the Australian Federal Police. So I felt this was a good opportunity today to come here and speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I do think that my background is unique in this place and, because this bill covers the circumstances of defence veterans and former members of the AFP and what we used to call the COMPOL, or Commonwealth Police, I felt this was a good opportunity.

Like the last couple of speakers, during this week I did a bit of thinking about this bill and looked forward to the debate, both sides of which looked like they were going to add a great deal of value. But in sitting here and listening I have become greatly concerned about some of the changes, which we have found out about through various means, that are delaying access to pensions by partners of veterans for 8½ years. That part of this bill only surfaced through the release of a document that we managed to come in contact with.

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

That’s not part of the bill, mate. You’re in the wrong bill.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. I wonder what the Partners of Veterans Association in Western Australia would say about these changes—whether they are in this bill or in another one. They should certainly be concerned about that. In Western Australia we have a very strong Partners of Veterans Association, and a lot of people have done great work in setting that up. Recently I attended the opening of the new drop-in and resource centre. For their work, I congratulate: the patron, Mrs Judith Parker AM; the president, Sandra Cross; the vice-presidents, Gayle Yates, Judy Firth and Lyn Boreham; the secretary, Kerryn McDonnell; and the treasurer, Sally Warner. I look forward to returning to Perth on Friday and taking the opportunity to consult with them on matters that they should be aware of, if they are not currently.

Of concern is the plan of the government to downwardly pro rata the compensation payments to injured reservists. In Perth we have 13 Brigade, a reservist brigade. In amongst that brigade, as I would hope those present who would want to talk about these matters would know, there is the 16 Battalion and the 11/28 Battalion—two fine reserve battalions with great histories from the wars that Australia has participated in.

Due to the high tempo that the Australian Defence Force is currently operating under while doing their great work around the world, the Defence Force has relied a lot more in recent times on the efforts of the reservists. There are many reservists who have gone overseas and served this country in a variety of roles, whether it is in combat or ready for combat, and, obviously, there are plenty of police that have also gone overseas for law enforcement. I am greatly concerned that the plans to undertake a pro rata payment of compensation to reservists really undervalues the great work these men and women do. Again, I look forward to returning to Perth, where I can consult with some of the service organisations and some of these units to see how they feel about these changes.

Within the electorate of Cowan there are a number of organisations that undertake great advocacy work. Again, I look forward to consulting with these organisations about some of these matters. In the suburb of Kingsley we are fortunate enough to host the North Perth branch of the Naval Association of Australia. The president of that sub-branch is Jack La Cras. He is also supported by the secretary, Doug Valeriani, who has done some great work with the Naval Association. Doug Valeriani also does some work for the Wanneroo war memorial. He has undertaken to raise and lower the Australian flag and the other flags at that war memorial every day, and he does a great job.

Also within the electorate of Cowan is the Ballajura sub-branch of the RSL, which is ably run by President, Roy Daniels, and his secretary, Scottie Alcorn. They have done some excellent work there. They work well with the local school—Ballajura Community College—and its principal, Dr Steffan Silcox. Ballajura is a great community that was due to receive a large funding grant from the previous government under Regional Partnerships—$125,000 was granted to the City of Swan to help build a war memorial and peace park. Although that project has not been maligned by the government, I can assure them that there is nothing wrong there and it had great support.

Another fine organisation is the Wanneroo-Joondalup sub-branch of the RSL, of which Ron Privilege is the president. Apart from the advocacy services that they undertake for veterans, they run the great dawn service at Joondalup war memorial and the district commemoration service at Wanneroo war memorial later that morning. That sub-branch does great work.

I undertook to be fairly quick tonight. I would like to reiterate some of the points that previous speakers have made. It should be abundantly clear to those on the other side that veterans do not see their pension or payments as welfare support. I received a number of very agitated phone calls in recent weeks about veterans having to line up with welfare recipients in Centrelink offices. Veterans very much appreciate their direct involvement with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I would like to see that close relationship, that direct relationship with DVA, continue, although with 196 fewer staff within DVA I worry about the services that veterans will be provided with. It is important that we do not have veterans standing in line at Centrelink offices. It is important that these pensions and other forms of payments for veterans are not classified as welfare support, because the work these people have done for their nation is not deserving of that characterisation. We owe them a debt of service. We should ensure that they are particularly well looked after and that we do not have petty little changes—mean changes that will damage their entitlements due to them because of the work they have done and the sacrifices they and their families have made throughout the history of this country.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have always stood up for the entitlements of veterans and support programs for veterans. I have great respect for their service both to our nation and to the military forces that they served in. I am pleased to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008 tonight, as I want to throw in a bit of a wild card here. I am glad the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is here to listen to this, because it is not said with any malice. I have about 4½ thousand veterans and their partners in my electorate. They are valued and vital members of our community and I stay very close to them. I have contact with many people in the veteran community and I stay close to two major RSLs, in Bundaberg and in Hervey Bay. There are Vietnam Veterans Associations in both Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and there are smaller RSLs in places, such as Childers, throughout my electorate. I am the patron of the Vietnam Veterans Association in Bundaberg and I am proud to be so. It is something that some members of parliament would not accept, but I have no problems with being their patron.

I am a proud advocate of systemic improvements being made to veterans entitlements and I congratulate the former government on what they did. It is fair to say that I have always been prepared to fight for further improvements when the need arose. I was one of those who rebelled and pushed for amendments, which resulted following the Clarke review in 2004, to the Veterans’ Entitlement Act. I do not think the previous government took that matter sufficiently on board, and I have never resiled from that. I think we should have done more at that time and I was pleased to play a part in getting some of those things done.

But, having criticised my former government, let me say for the record that that government also increased spending on health care for veterans by 200 per cent. The funding went up from $1.6 billion to $4.8 billion. The coalition government also indexed all Veterans’ Affairs disability pensions to both the consumer price index and MTAWE from March 2008. And it was the same coalition government which increased payments for general rate and EDA recipients, as well as for people receiving war widows pensions and widowers pensions. Although I do not believe anything can ever fully compensate veterans for their experience, the benefits extended under the coalition government’s term of office represented a significant improvement to the welfare of veterans and to the lifestyle of their families.

The amendments contained in the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008 continue that reform. Schedule 1 of the bill removes restrictions limiting assistance and benefits to veterans of other Commonwealth nations—Allied nations—such as those from Britain, New Zealand and Canada. But if I read the bill correctly, Minister—and correct me if I am wrong—the covenant of reciprocity coming from those countries is still the determinant of what those veterans will receive.

I have often talked about what is essentially the flip side of the arrangement—that is, recognising the service of Australians who, through circumstances beyond their control, served in the forces of other Allied nations. I am not talking about people who came from Allied countries to Australia as migrants subsequent to the war; I am talking about Australians who served in the RAF and in other spheres of war. There were people who were caught in Canada and the UK, and when war broke out, out of a sense of loyalty to country, Commonwealth and the Empire, if you like—we do not know about it now but at the time they talked about the Empire—they joined the military forces of the country in which they found themselves. They did not see the distinction between being strictly Australian and a British subject, because they were almost one and the same thing in those days. When the war broke out in the Pacific, there were a number of people who were caught in Fiji, and they joined the British colonial army. If you saw photos of these guys you would say they were Aussies—they wore identical uniforms, they wore the slouch hats, they had the .303s—but they were not. They were under British command, and because self-government subsequently devolved to Fiji after the war they were then only entitled to Fijian supplementary benefits. They are people who were prepared to serve and the only reason they did not join the Australian Army, Air Force or Navy—which they would have preferred to join—was that they could not get home.

Those veterans and their wives have found themselves in the position where they are not entitled to the same benefits as Australians who served in the Australian military forces. I would like to raise the case—and I have done this before in the parliament—of a lady in my electorate called Margaret Vint from Bargara. Margaret’s husband served in the British colonial army in Fiji. He got caught there because he went over as an employee of CSR, which had sugar mills there at the time. The war broke out, and he joined the British colonial army, and that is where he served right through the war. After the war he worked for CSR and came back to Australia—but at a vastly different entitlement rate to those other Australians who served in our armed forces.

Margaret’s husband, John Campbell Vint, died of a war type condition—it was a lung related disease—and it was subsequently recognised by the Australian Army. He was entitled to a war service loan, but he and his wife were on normal civilian pensions. Margaret gets $220 every three months from the Fijian government. That is not nearly on a par with what the widows of Australian veterans get. These people need to be considered. There cannot be many more of these people and their widows left. They live in this country, having served their country in a civilian capacity, and having served the Commonwealth in the Second World War at some length, and they now find themselves without the benefit of things like gold cards. In this case, John Vint did not even have a white card. I just appeal to the Minister today to think of those people and see if we cannot be more inclusive of them.

I do not say anything to disparage Fiji—I know they have had problems with the Commonwealth; they are in and out of the Commonwealth because of the coups and the like that have gone on over there—but let us be frank: Fiji is a country that needs support, support from Commonwealth countries and particularly Australia. So they are never likely to be in a position to compensate troops who served them in the same way that we do. I appeal to the minister to have a look at what it would really cost to help those veterans. I am talking about Australian citizen veterans who served in other Commonwealth or Allied countries as a result of circumstances beyond their control.

I also commend the bill for its recognition of Commonwealth and Federal Police officers who patrolled the Maralinga exclusion zone up to 2001. I commend their inclusion from April 1965 to June 1988. They should be treated for their cancers and compensated for their testing and travelling costs. I am sure that will be welcomed by all those veterans and ex-policemen.

The coalition’s commitment to care, compensation and commemoration of our veterans and their war widows is rock solid. I take it as my duty to support those organisations. With the minister here today, I ask him most sincerely, at a time when we are reviewing the entitlements, to have a look at those Australians who served in Allied countries when they did not have the opportunity to get back to Australia.

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

in reply—I will pick up on some comments of a couple of the earlier speakers, including my friend the member for Hinkler, a little bit later on. I will not hold up the House for too long, because I know that there is more legislation to be dealt with.

I will start off by making some general comments about the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008. This bill makes a number of amendments to Veterans’ Affairs portfolio legislation which will improve the operation of Australia’s repatriation system. The bill contains amendments that will further align the veterans entitlements means tests with the social security means test, provide greater flexibility in our arrangements with other countries, correct a number of minor errors in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and extend the eligibility period for Commonwealth and Australian Federal Police under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. The bill also makes a number of technical and consequential amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

Greater flexibility in our international agreement arrangements will be achieved by enabling the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to enter into arrangements with other countries and removing the current restriction that limits the Repatriation Commission to providing the same benefits to a veteran that they would be entitled to receive in their own country. The removal of this restriction will enable eligible overseas veterans to be provided with the care and assistance to which they are entitled and in a way that is consistent with repatriation healthcare arrangements.

The bill also authorises the use of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the initial payment of benefits and assistance to eligible overseas veterans and their dependants who are resident in Australia. These amounts are later reimbursed, to the maximum extent possible, by the respective foreign governments. The Repatriation Commission has a number of agreements to act as the agent for other countries in providing pensions and health services to over 6,300 eligible persons.

Minor changes to the income and assets tests will further align the VEA with the social security income and assets tests. Changes to coverage for nuclear test participants will extend the period for which Commonwealth or Australian Federal Police officers may be considered to be a nuclear test participant for the purposes of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. This act provides treatment, including testing, for malignant neoplasia, more commonly known as cancer, suffered by eligible participants in the British nuclear testing program conducted at three locations in Australia, including Maralinga. The act already covers Commonwealth or Australian Federal Police officers who patrolled the Maralinga nuclear test area up until 30 April 1965. Scientific evidence indicates that the nature of police duties meant that these officers may have been exposed to possible contamination at this site until 1988, when a radiation safety monitoring program began. This bill will extend assistance for nuclear test participants to include Commonwealth Police or AFP officers who entered the Maralinga nuclear test area up until 30 June 1988. Finally, minor changes to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act will ensure that widowed partners and incapacitated members receive the correct compensation payments to which they are entitled under the MRCA.

We came to government with a commitment to provide robust services and support to Australia’s ex-service community. That commitment includes continuing to review the operation of Australia’s repatriation and military compensation and rehabilitation systems. This legislation will strengthen support in a number of areas to ensure that the assistance available through the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio is efficient, effective, equitable and fair.

I commend the bill to the House and I note that, overwhelmingly, speakers on both sides of the House have been positive about what is actually in the bill—although I need to pick up on a couple of issues that were raised by my colleague the member for Mackellar, the shadow minister. I think a couple of points need to be made with respect to aspects that relate to the act. Firstly, the shadow minister had in her possession a document which she used with great interest to suggest that there was a grand conspiracy at work. She quoted from the document with respect to what the impact would be on a reservist in a particular set of circumstances, and suggested that what we were dealing with here was a savings measure of some significance. I need to set the record straight there. If you read the same document, a bit further down the page it says, ‘Minor savings in the vicinity of $25,000 per year may result from this measure.’ That is what we are talking about, and it is minor.

The explanatory memorandum says:

The measures in the Bill are expected to have a negligible financial impact.

Frankly, $25,000, out of a budget of some $11.59 billion, is negligible by any stretch of the imagination. I remind the House that legislation is often passed—and it was very often passed by the previous government—where the explanatory memorandum says ‘the measures in the bill are expected to have a negligible financial impact’. When you go to the detail of those bills, and there have been many of them, you find that there was in fact some financial impact, but it was negligible. The suggestion that this is a misleading basis for continuing with this legislation, and that in fact some secret information on the nature of this bill was provided to the ALP caucus, is stretching it an awfully long way.

Another point made by the shadow minister, and it is a recurring theme, was that there be support for the system of Veterans’ Affairs, for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and for veterans, and that we ensure that veterans do not have to deal with the social security system. By and large, I agree with the shadow minister that that is what the aim should be. But I would like to go to the terms used in the explanatory memorandum. It states:

Schedule 1 also amends the VEA to further align the Veterans’ entitlements means test with the social security means test …

This is apparently the basis for why there are great dramas with the operation of these changes and the impact they have. Again, it is a standard term that is used. It was used in a range of legislation over the last decade by the previous government when dealing with similar matters. Go back over the last 10 years and check any legislation you like with respect to amending legislation in the area of Veterans’ Affairs and you will find those terms used on a regular basis. Putting that to one side, I endorse the comments of the shadow minister on the basis that we too support a system where veterans get a fair deal. It should be their system and they should be treated in a beneficial fashion. That is what we have done and will continue to do with respect to these particular changes.

I could go into a wider discussion about issues around the budget, but we will be doing that at other times. Unlike some speakers, I will stick roughly to what the bill is about. But I will just say again that we are talking about an $11.59 billion budget. It is a record. It builds on the work of the last few years, which builds on the work of the years before that. It recognises yet again that the significance and importance of our veteran community is there for all to see and we should support it. We do support it and we will continue to support it.

I note that the member for Hinkler is still here. I congratulate him on having previously taken a stand on things like the Clarke review. I agree with him that there are other issues that still need to be looked at. This government was committed during the election and is committed during its term to doing exactly that. The previous government did not. The previous government said that, as far as they were concerned, it was over and nothing more was being done. I note the comments of the shadow minister. He made a vague mention of nuclear issues—and there may be other issues to consider there.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister willing to give way?

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

Yes.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Would you undertake to look into the cases of those veterans I mentioned—Australians who have served in other spheres, especially people like Mrs Vint?

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

I am happy to do that. The member for Hinkler has raised an interesting point. The thing that is most fascinating about this job is that there are always new issues coming up that need to be looked at, although they often prove to be too difficult to deal with. I am happy to look at this issue. I am amazed that it has not been raised with me before. Although I have been the minister for only a few months, I was the shadow minister for the best part of a term, so I am surprised by that. My understanding is that there were some domiciliary issues related to what Clarke said in his report. We have made a commitment to look at the recommendations from the Clarke report that were not accepted by the previous government, and it may well come up through that. But I certainly undertake to look at this on behalf of the member for Hinkler and I will get back to him as soon as I am able to do so.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be happy to make a submission.

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

If we go ahead on that basis, we would be happy for that to occur. My point beyond that is that essentially I want to assure the House that this legislation is in keeping with legislation over the years that has maintained the integrity of the veterans entitlements system. The government will continue to maintain the integrity of the veterans entitlements system. We are acting on the commitments we made at the election and through this budget, where we have continued down that track to a record level of $11.59 billion. I look forward to implementing more of our commitments over the following 12 months and to ensuring that I do everything I can to make sure that the veterans community in this country are considered special and treated as they should be.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.