Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to lend comment to the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 after the bill was lost following the proroguing of parliament. This bill implements Labor’s 2007 election commitment to reconsider the unimplemented recommendations of the Clarke review of veterans’ entitlements. The review of veterans’ entitlements of course was conducted by the Hon. John Clarke QC and was completed in 2003. In 2004 the previous coalition government responded with a package of $236 million over five years. Building upon this in 2007 the Labor Party promised:

A Rudd Labor Government will give further consideration to recommendations of the Clarke Review of Veterans’ Entitlements that were not acted upon by the Howard Government. This process will also give early priority to recommendations relating to those Australian participants in the British Commonwealth Occupational Force in Japan and Defence participants in the atomic tests in Australia.

That was on page 22 of Labor’s Plan for Veterans’ Affairs.

Subsequently, on 9 September 2008 the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs issued a press release titled Government kicks off Clarke review nuclear veterans and BCOF a priority. Submissions from veterans about unimplemented recommendations were due by 1 December 2009. The recommendations of the re-review of the Clarke review—lots of reviews there—were delivered to Minister Griffin in February 2009. It is disappointing that it took more than 30 months from the election of the government and 15 months from the time the report was delivered to the minister for any action on those recommendations. However I am pleased that the government has sought to bring the bill back unamended after it was prorogued with the parliament.

In terms of specific measures, in the 2010-2011 budget the Rudd Labor government announced $36 million over four years to implement the re-reviewed recommendations of the Clarke review. As part of this, the government announced three recommendations were accepted and acted upon, four had been accepted, four deferred for further consideration, 22 referred to review of military compensation acts, and 12 rejected for a second time. It is disappointing that the government had not sought with the re-introduction of the bill to relook at some of those provisions that they had either deferred for further consideration or outright rejected. Recommendations relating to the British Commonwealth Occupational Force veterans have been further delayed, the government stating that it proposes to defer its response to these recommendations to allow further examination and discussion within the government and with the Defence Nature of Service review team. May I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, that since parliament was prorogued in August there has been plenty of time to review those recommendations and to allow for further examination.

Disappointingly, there is also no time line for the completion of this further review. The Rudd Labor government made a big noise about correcting the service of BCOF veterans under the review of the Clarke review, yet here we are waiting 30 months, plus now another five or six since the election commenced, and we are still seeing three recommendations going off to another review—or a re-review of the re-review of the Clarke review—with no firm timetable for delivery. I think I can speak for everyone in the parliament that perhaps we do not need any more re-reviews of the re-review of the Clarke review; we just need someone to do something.

There are 2,700 aged veterans and their families, not to mention the rest of the nation, the parliament and, I suspect, most of Labor’s side of parliament, who are none the wiser about the commitment that Labor made to them at the 2007 election and that was still in force at the 2010 election. Notwithstanding that, there are five schedules. Schedule 1, relates to the British nuclear test recommendation 45 of the Clarke review. It states that the Australian government will reclassify the service of British nuclear test defence service veterans to an equivalent hazardous non-war like status. This reclassification has an appropriation cost of $23.4 million over four years. Eligible ex-defence personnel will be able to access disability pensions, war widow(er) pensions and, where applicable, the gold card. In 2006 the previous coalition government extended coverage of the white card to all ex-defence and civilian personnel who were involved in the tests. White card coverage will remain for civilian personnel who were not ex-defence personnel. Under changes to the VEA, the Veterans Entitlements’ Act 1986, a new classification of service will be inserted into the act to reflect this spirit of the Clarke review recommendation.

Schedule 2 looks at recommendation 31a of the Clarke review. The Australian government will seek to reclassify the service of submarine special operations undertaken between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992 as ‘qualifying’ and ‘operational’ service. This change will entitle them to access to assets- and means-tested service pension at age 60, disability pension, war widow(er) pension and the gold card at age 70. The Rudd Labor government’s response states:

… based on advice from the Department of Defence, for certain submarine special operations between 1978 and 1992 where submariners and others are eligible for the award of the Australian Service Medal with the Submarine Special Operations Clasp, the Government will seek to amend the VEA to extend operational and qualifying service. This goes further than the Clarke Review—

to their credit—

and grants Service Pension at age 60, the Gold Card at age 70 and disability pension with the reasonable hypothesis test.

The Naval Association of Australia strongly supports the extended classification and, frankly, so do I. For anyone who has not spent time in the now decommissioned Oberon submarines, which is what we are talking about, imagine dressing yourself in one big greasy oily rag and staying that way for months at a time, while conducting significant operations in our region. They are the conditions that these men served under. So I congratulate the government for its foresight in this area.

Schedule 3 deals with service in Thailand. The Australian government will again reclassify certain service between 31 May 1962 and 27 July 1962 in north-east Thailand at Ubon as ‘qualifying service’. This will entitle eligible veterans access to service pensions at age 60, the gold card at age 70, on top of existing entitlements to disability and war widow(er) pensions. This reclassification is not due to a specific recommendation in the Clarke review—again to the government’s credit. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel at the time said in a press release on 11 May 2010 that this item was not in response to the Clarke review but a decision taken by the government.

It is instructive to look at the history of this service to understand, perhaps, a little of where the government came from in its decision. Throughout the sixties, Australian service personnel were stationed throughout South-East Asia and were involved in conflicts in Malaya and Indonesia. Indeed, in a Malayan emergency 36 Australian service personnel were killed—the first Australian deaths in action since the cessation of World War II. After 1965, personnel were involved in the Vietnam War through the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam. In May 1962, the 79th Squadron from the Royal Australian Air Force was dispatched to north-east Thailand to protect the territorial integrity of Thailand. At the time of their dispatch, I think it is fair to say that there were few, if any, facilities at Ubon. By the end of July, more permanent facilities had begun to be constructed, but prior to that they were literally eking a living out of the jungle. Although personnel remained at Ubon until 1968, this particular two months of service has been reclassified due to the ‘potential risk from the activities of hostile forces and dissident elements’, not to mention living in particularly parlous circumstances. I think schedule 3 receives universal acclamation from the parliament in what it is seeking to do.

Schedule 4 of the bill deals with section 60 of the Clarke review. The Australian government is seeking to correct an anomaly in the VE Act to enable certain British Commonwealth and allied veterans who were aged between 18 and 21 at the time of enlistment in the Commonwealth or allied defence force to access the Australian repatriation system. Under the VE Act, British Commonwealth and allied veterans may be eligible for pensions and other benefits if they have eligible service with the Commonwealth or allied defence forces and if they had Australian domicile immediately prior to their enlistment in that defence force. It, indeed, makes sense to support that.

Schedule 5 deals with the effect of war widows and widowers entering into a de facto relationship. Recommendation 54 of the Clarke review looks at the Australian government removing an entitlement from war widows or widowers who claim a war widow or widower pension after entering a marriage-like—de facto—relationship. Consequently the government will require eligible war widows or widowers to claim a war widow or widower pension before they enter a new relationship in order to qualify for their pension. Under current legislation, a war widow or widower who applies for a war widow or widower pension after marrying or remarrying is not entitled to a pension. However, a war widow or widower who enters a marriage-like relationship, including a de facto one, can still apply for that pension. Whilst this change is prospective—so no current war widows or widowers will be affected by this change—it does seek to make some assumptions about the way people live their lives. I note the government is seeking to save $1.4 million over four years, denying approximately 10 new applications per year.

Again, looking at the history of this may be instructive. In 1984, the Hawke government ‘reinstated’ pensions to married or remarried war widows who, until then, lost their pension upon remarriage. This change applied from 1984 and was not retrospective. In 2001, the previous coalition government broadened this 1984 change to any married or remarried war widow who lost their pension as a result of their marriage or remarriage after applying for—and being granted—a war widow pension. Justice Clarke recommended, inter alia, that no change to present arrangements be made, including the broadening of the base of war widow and widower pensions to people who applied after marriage. The war widow and widower pension is a compensation payment and is not means tested. It is paid at the rate of $703.90 per fortnight and some eligible war widows and widowers may also receive an income support supplement. This change has the support of the veterans and ex-service community, including the War Widows’ Guild of Australia and Legacy. My view, for what it is worth, remains that a war widow or widower remains a war widow or widower regardless if they are remarried or move into a de facto relationship. I cite a tremendous lady, Nicole Pearce, whose husband, David ‘Poppy’ Pearce, was tragically killed in Afghanistan very early in the conflict. Regardless of how she moves forward in her life, she remains a war widow. Her husband was killed in combat operations. Her two small daughters were there when her husband was buried and I see them each year and talk to them on the anniversary of her husband’s death, 9 October. Regardless of how she chooses to move forward in her life, she remains a war widow and this nation still has a debt to pay to her. Whilst accepting Justice Clarke’s recommendations and whilst accepting what the government is doing with this schedule, I point out that my comments are simply a reflection of a personal view, that a war widow will always remain a war widow. Otherwise I conclude my comments with respect to this veterans bill before it moves back to the House.

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

I speak in support of the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010. At the beginning of this speech, I wish to pay tribute to the former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin, the member for Bruce, particularly for his support of veterans in the Ipswich and West Moreton community in the electorate of Blair. It was at the Ipswich RSL that he announced that we would undertake a parliamentary inquiry into the deseal/reseal program which resulted in what I would call the Bevis parliamentary committee recommendations that were taken up and brought about some degree of justice for the people—in the Ipswich and West Moreton area and across Queensland and elsewhere—who worked in the deseal/reseal area. He also attended upon my community of Ipswich and conducted a forum on a number of issues raised by people in the veterans community as well as by serving RAAF personnel at the Amberley base. So I pay tribute to him and say that the legislation that we are dealing with here today is the work of him, his staff and his department and I thank him for it. It has been taken up, of course, by the new minister, the honourable member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon.

This legislation picks up from where it was before the parliament was prorogued and, as the member for Fadden outlined in very great detail by way of schedules, makes a number of amendments with respect to the service of notices, dealing with Australian participants in British nuclear tests, dealing with dependants of war veterans, and dealing with the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme in relation to the collection of a state emergency service levy from policyholders—which, by the way, will have no impact on the bottom line of the budget. It also protects the integrity of our regimes with respect to Specialist Medical Review Council matters and deals with compensation and the interests of those who receive it under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act by making sure that compensation can be paid into bank accounts in the recipients’ names.

The member for Fadden correctly, and quite eloquently actually, outlined by way of the schedules what this legislation contains. It is really a plethora of amendments through which there are significant reforms to the legislation. Extending nuclear test participant eligibility to a number of people who served during the British nuclear tests at Maralinga is credible and worthy, and the government is to be commended for it. While I am on that subject, I wish to pay tribute to a local advocate in my area, a guy called Merv Kleindon, who lives in Ipswich in the One Mile-Leichhardt community and has been such an advocate for everyone who worked in that program back in the fifties and beyond. A number of Indigenous people were also exposed to the effects of radioactivity, as were the service personnel who were engaged in working on the planes that went through the area. People like Merv had advocated for justice not just for Indigenous people and not just for people who worked in the military but for others, such as the Australian Protective Service officers, covered by the legislation here, and other participants who suffered ill health as a result of their involvement in the British nuclear tests. We see in this bill the extension of eligibility for non-liability health care under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act for those people involved in British nuclear tests between 20 October 1984 to 30 June 1988 who now suffer malignant neoplasia. Many people were involved who were exposed to activities in the past which should not have happened.

There are other changes here in the legislation with respect to notices. For instance, Federal Court decisions following the absence of provisions in Commonwealth legislation setting out the requirements of service of written notice involving the operations of the act and the need for the Acts Interpretation Act, which provides for service on a person by sending it to the residential address, impacted on the current legislation. Amendment to the proposed legislation will extend the period of time for lodgement of claims and will provide benefits by making the statute clearer in many areas that are currently ambiguous under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. Sometimes when legislation is passed we see notice provisions in relation to one piece of legislation that do not quite marry, say, with the Acts Interpretation Act, but what we are doing here is making improvements in that regard.

As I said before, the bill enables Defence Service Homes Insurance to collect a state emergency services levy from policy holders in New South Wales to assist the New South Wales Labor government with the cost of providing emergency services in that state. This is done throughout the country in various places, particularly New South Wales, and there will be no impact on the bottom line here. This is a sensible amendment in the circumstances and I commend the minister for that.

The bill also enhances the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Council by making it clear that that particular council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical Authority so as not to amend a statement of principles—another worthy thing in the circumstances. There are changes aplenty in this legislation and they constitute a myriad of improvements. I was intending to speak at length on each and every one but the member for Fadden outlined the changes very clearly in his speech, for which he should be thanked. I also thank him for recognising at times where we have taken very just and humane and decent steps to help people who have been the recipients of injustice.

I thank the government for what it undertook and for looking at the review of veterans’ entitlements and looking at the recommendations of Justice Clarke. They have certainly had an impact in my area and, as I say, with respect to the work of the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I could not have asked for more cooperation in my community, particularly with respect to the Clarke review but also in relation to the deseal-reseal issue. It made a big impact locally in my electorate.

This legislation, again with important amendments, will impact to the benefit of the Australian community in terms of certainty of statutory interpretation, notice provisions, and making sure the legislation that deals with our veterans, who should be honoured, deals with them in a just and humane way.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010. I state from the outset that the coalition supports this bill, which makes a number of minor amendments to legislation affecting the veteran community. Despite this bill having been presented in November of last year, the legislation has been continually pushed aside and delayed. This is disappointing; however, I am pleased to have this opportunity in the House to speak about issues that are important to the veteran community.

The Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 contains eight parts. I will focus briefly on each part of the bill. Part 1 of the bill makes amendments to the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests Treatment Act 2006. This legislation was passed in the parliament in 2006 under the previous coalition government. The act provided a white card to veterans of British nuclear testing in Western Australia and South Australia. It covered not only defence personnel but also guards and other employees who worked on the sites until the 1990s. The legislation passed in 2006 was intended to benefit up to 5,500 veterans and former public servants. This amendment extends the coverage to Australian Protective Service officers who served on the site between 1984 and 1988. They were inadvertently left out as a result of other acts and the situation of the Australian Federal Police. I am pleased that this amendment is being made now.

The government has created a new classification for veterans’ service—British nuclear test defence service—equivalent to hazardous non-warlike service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This will enable eligible participants to access disability pensions and war widower pensions where applicable. This new classification is in response to the Rudd Labor government’s re-review of the Clarke review, which sat on the minister’s desk for 15 months after being released publicly.

Part 2 of this bill amends the Defence Service Homes Act to allow the Commonwealth to make payment to the state or a state authority where, under a law of the state, a person carrying on in that state the business of insuring against the risk of loss of or damage to property is liable to make payments to the state or a state authority to assist in meeting the costs of the state emergency services of that state. The New South Wales state Labor government has decided to place a levy on insurance policies held in that state to meet the costs of operating the State Emergency Service. This is a tax grab from a cash-strapped state Labor government, penalising insurance policyholders with a tax.

Whilst the coalition has opposed this new tax in New South Wales, the constitution largely requires the federal parliament to allow this legislative change to pass. It is not pleasing, nor does it seem fair, that veterans and defence personnel who have insurance policies in the state of New South Wales are unfairly charged a levy, expected to be around $10 per annum, to meet what should be a cost met through other revenue sources. There has been some suggestion that the cost for insurance companies to charge this levy will be around $20 million, with these costs also being passed on to holders of insurance policies.

This is an open-ended amendment which allows any state to charge an SES levy and for the Defence Homes Insurance Service to transfer revenue raised for this purpose to the relevant state government. This change in effect means that federal parliamentary approval will not be required should Victoria or Queensland also decide to levy the charge. This amendment gives that approval in advance. I am disappointed that this new levy is being put in place. This is additional evidence of the need for a new coalition government in New South Wales headed by Barry O’Farrell.

Part 3 of the legislation extends the period in which claims for travel expenses may be lodged with the department. Specifically, the amendment extends the time limit for the lodgement of a claim for non-treatment related travel expenses from three months to 12 months. That will align the time limit with that already available for travel expenses for obtaining treatment. The amendment also introduces to each of the non-treatment travel categories a further extension to the 12-month time limit for exceptional circumstances, as currently exists for travel expenses for obtaining treatment. The veteran community largely has been calling for this for some time now.

Part 4 makes a technical change in the way documents are served under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The Federal Court recently highlighted the absence of provisions within the VEA and MRCA that set out the requirements for the service of written notices or other documents under the acts. The amendment will enable a number of entities under each act, such as the Repatriation Commission and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, to specify in writing the manner in which a notice or other document may be given to a person.

Part 5 fixes a drafting anomaly in the VEA concerning injuries and diseases and their coverage by MRCA. It makes clear that compensation remains payable under the VEA for the original war-caused and defence-caused component of an injury or disease that is subsequently aggravated or materially contributed to by defence service on or after 1 July 2004, when MRCA began. The member has the option of electing to make a claim under VEA or MRCA for the component of the injury or disease that has been aggravated or materially contributed to by service on or after 1 July 2004. This was the original intention of the legislation and ensures that legally this process is undertaken and carried out.

Part 6 makes a prospective amendment to the MRCA regarding widows of prisoners of war. This amendment will enable them to claim a pension under MRCA—a provision which is available in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act but not under MRCA.

Part 7 is a technical amendment which will enable the Specialist Medical Review Council, or SMRC, to review decisions of the RMA. The RMA is responsible for preparing statements of principles which are utilised by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in assessing the eligibility of a veteran for particular entitlements for injuries or part of their service. There are two statements of principles used in determining whether an injury or disease is related to war or defence service. One sets out the types of conditions which need to exist as a minimum before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting the injury or disease with service. The other statement sets out factors that must exist and which of those factors must be related to service before it can be said that, on the balance of probabilities, an injury or disease is connected with service.

Statements of principles are prepared by the Repatriation Medical Authority. They can be reviewed by the Specialist Medical Review Council, and under the current legislation there is no requirement for the SMRC to review both statements of principles. This can lead to the potential for the two statements to differ slightly. So under this amendment the SMRC will review both statements to ensure that they remain aligned.

The final amendments in part 8 clarify some technical arrangements under the MRCA as they relate to the payment of money into bank accounts. The amendments also enable recipients of the Victoria Cross to receive an annuity from a foreign government in addition to the Australian government’s Victoria Cross allowance. Currently annuities cannot be received by Australian recipients in conjunction with an Australian annuity. The VEA will be amended to exclude any foreign allowance or annuity from counting as income under the act’s income test. Any payment will be included in the hardship test of the act. The Social Security Act will also be amended to exclude any foreign allowance or annuity from the act’s income test in line with existing practice.

Madam Deputy Speaker, these are minor but not inconsequential amendments. We support the changes to the legislation which make it easier for our veterans and their families to access assistance and benefits that they may be entitled to. Whilst we have some reservations about the SES levy, more broadly this legislation does carry the bipartisan support of the opposition.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commence my contribution on the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 by paying my respects to all those veterans in the electorate of Shortland, and for that matter throughout Australia, who have made an enormous contribution to Australia. I think every time we debate veterans legislation it is important to look at the group of people that the legislation is impacting upon. In Shortland electorate we do have a large number of veterans, particularly Second World War veterans and veterans who have been affected by the nuclear tests that took place in Australia. This legislation does extend the nuclear test participation eligibility to certain Australian protective services officers for the period of 1984 to 1988.

I am very familiar with the impact that those nuclear tests had on the lives of our veterans and Australians who were in that area at the time the tests took place. I have done a lot of work in my electorate with veterans and those affected by those tests. I have seen some of them die. I have seen others who have constantly fought cancers such as cancers of the skin, in one case working with and helping over an extended period of time a person with myeloid leukaemia. He was somebody who really raised with me the issues associated with the atomic testing. I could see at a personal level how that testing impacted on his life, and then I met with a wider range of atomic test veterans. I think the extension of this participation eligibility is important. Those officers of the Australian protective services deserve to have that coverage because I know that their health and their lives have been impacted enormously.

As a member of this House who stood up at times on this issue when the Howard government was in power and saw how little compassion and sympathy that government had towards our nuclear test veterans, it really warms my heart to be part of a government that has not only recognised the impact that the testing had on the lives of our veterans but has also extended it to the Australian Protective Services. This extension, this eligibility for non-liability healthcare treatment, provides for the government to fund cancer treatment for participants in the British nuclear tests in Australia. Members of the Commonwealth Police, now known as the AFP, were previously granted access to non-liability health care by an amendment to the Australian participation act in 2008. I point out that was under the Rudd government. It took a Labor government to bring about the changes that have been needed. This extension was granted on the basis of scientific evidence, something really important to put before the House. There has been a wide body of scientific evidence that has supported the fact that atomic testing in Australia did impact on the lives and health of those people that were in the area at the time. To be quite frank, it is very disappointing that there was such a long period when those persons that were in that area went without having the recognition and the healthcare treatment that they should have been entitled to. The fact is that this scientific evidence indicated that the unique nature of the service of the police and APS officers increased the possibility of exposure to contaminated dust and dirt.

The constituent to whom I referred earlier who had myeloid leukaemia had worked in a truck. He told me how everyday when he would return from work his clothes would be covered in this contaminated dust. There was no decontamination process to go through; rather, he walked in, took his clothes off and his wife threw those clothes into the washing machine and then he went to work the next day in either those clothes or a fresh change of clothing. It is interesting to note that his wife has cancer. It is not myeloid leukaemia; it is a different kind of cancer. So I do not think we can underestimate the impact that being in that area and being exposed to contamination had on the lives of those people.

The APS officers patrolled the Maralinga area alongside the Commonwealth Police and the AFP. The amendment provides treatment eligibility for APS officers who served in the Maralinga area up until 30 June 1988, after which time comprehensive precautions and protocols were put in place to prevent exposure. So those APS officers will be eligible for the non-liability medical care and treatment that should have taken place a while ago. It has taken a Labor government to recognise that these APS officers really need the support of their government to be able to obtain the health treatment via white card that they should have been able to claim for a long period of time. The amendment allows APS officers who claim within six months of the introduction of this legislation to have their reimbursement for treatment backdated to 2006. I think that is a very important aspect of this legislation because we all know that the treatment for cancer can be quite an expensive process. This is recognition by the government that those APS officers who served during the relevant period should not be disadvantaged because they were not included in the extension in 2008. That is a really important part of this legislation. While this legislation may seem quite minor in nature, it has enormous implications for a number of APS officers who were in that atomic test area.

Some of the other items included in the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 include the payment for the State Emergency Service. It is my understanding this will have no financial impact. The amendment has a minimal administrative impact on the Defence Service Homes Insurance. DSHI can collect a levy from policyholders but requires the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to be amended to pass the moneys collected onto the New South Wales government. So this is a requirement of the New South Wales government. This levy is being implemented because it is needed to help finance the State Emergency Service. The New South Wales government introduced this levy on insurance policies specifically to fund the State Emergency Service, which plays a very vital role in communities throughout New South Wales. Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, I think that your area recently was badly hit by adverse weather events and the SES played a very important role. I know they did very similar sorts of work in my own electorate after the 2007 storms hit the Hunter. The State Emergency Service is a vital service and it is so important that we ensure that it is properly funded.

Another aspect of the legislation is the extension of time from three months to 12 months in which certain types of travel expenses can be claimed, bringing it into line with other travel reimbursements. Sometimes it is very difficult to put claim forms in within the three-month period. It is an anomaly that there are different periods of time within which different travel expenses can be claimed. It is sensible that all travel claims can be claimed within the same period of time. I think legislation should be put in place that requires all people who are eligible to claim their travel expenses to be treated similarly. So this is, once again, a very sensible change.

The legislation also makes provision for serving notice under both the war entitlements act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. Further, it makes clear that war-caused or defence-caused injury or disease remains compensable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, even if the injury or disease has been aggravated, or materially contributed to, by defence service under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This is very important because we need to support our veterans. We need to make sure that they get compensation when they need it—and legislation should be about enabling, not preventing, that. I see this legislation as enabling compensation to those who are entitled to it under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

The legislation corrects the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to enable the payment of a pension to a dependant of a veteran who was a prisoner of war during operational service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, where the veteran died after the commencement of the current act. Once again, this is a very, very important change to the legislation. A further provision enables a Specialist Medical Review Council to review both versions of the statement of principles applicable to the same injury, disease or death. The legislation also clarifies that the Specialist Medical Review Council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical Authority. Further, the legislation ensures certain lump sum payments of compensation and it enables Victoria Cross recipients to receive an allowance if they are also eligible for an allowance from a foreign country. This is very important legislation. It should be embraced by all members of this House, and I encourage members to support it as it is about benefits to all our veterans. (Time expired)

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, before I speak on the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010, I would like to congratulate you formally on your re-election at the 2010 election. I do not think I have had the opportunity to do that in this place to date.

The veterans community is a very significant community across my electorate of Corangamite and also my sister electorate, the federal electorate of Corio. In fact, under the veterans affairs legislation, some 3,000 veterans are provided entitlements within my seat and some 2,000-odd in the federal seat of Corio. It is a very active community. A number of service organisations meet regularly with me to advise and discuss matters that concern veterans. I certainly warmly acknowledge the active representations that they make to me.

I would also like to acknowledge the dedicated work of former Minister Alan Griffin, the member for Bruce, who worked in a very diligent way with the veterans community over the last three years to ensure that the Gillard government was responding to their needs. I certainly look forward to working with our new minister, Minister Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, in implementing further reforms that support the veterans community. They have made an outstanding contribution to Australia, and I certainly acknowledge that.

This piece of legislation has been many years in the making. The schedules associated with it have necessarily recognised some changes that have been a long time in the making. I first wish to discuss the Australian participants in the British nuclear test sites, particularly Maralinga, which has been an issue many governments have failed to recognise for a very, very significant period of time. The medical evidence has been mounting over many years that these nuclear tests have caused significant damage to the veterans community. The contribution made by the Deputy Government Whip and the practical example that she highlighted drew parallels to many people in our community suffering from asbestos related diseases. It is not just those who worked for the Australian Federal Police who were impacted on by radioactive dust. Particularly with those suffering mesothelioma and other diseases like that, it is often the women who might have had responsibility in the home for laundering the clothes of their husband or partner who also might have been adversely affected.

It is fair to say that through the white card the government has enabled these Australians to access this measure that has been a long time in the making. The non-liability healthcare treatment provides government funded treatment for cancers in the form of the white card for participants in British nuclear tests in Australia. The Commonwealth police at that period of time—now know as the Australian Federal Police—were previously granted access to non-liability healthcare treatment by an amendment in 2008to the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. The extension was granted on the basis of scientific evidence indicating that the unique nature of police and APS officer service increased the possibility of exposure to contaminated dust and dirt. As I relayed earlier, it occurs to me that there is a large parallel here with those suffering mesothelioma and particularly those who might have had responsibility for laundering clothes and the like of their partners or husbands.

The APS officers patrolled the Maralinga area alongside the AFP for many decades to ensure that the site remained safe from the rest of Australia. But that did do significant harm to them, as I understand it. The amendment provides treatment eligibility for APS officers who served at that test site up until 1988, after which time comprehensive precautionary protocols were put in place to prevent exposure. As I indicated earlier, it did take a long, long time for the Commonwealth to recognise the potential harm that that was doing. That is why I am so supportive of these amendments.

The amendment provides treatment eligibility for APS officers who served at that test site up until 1988; after which time, comprehensive precautionary protocols were put in place to prevent exposure. As I indicated earlier, it took a long time for the Commonwealth to recognise the potential harm of that exposure. That is why I am so supportive of these amendments. The amendment allows for APS officers who claim within six months of its introduction to have their treatment reimbursed back to June 2006. I think that recognises that our government has been working on this for a significant period of time, but also that there has been significant harm done. We want to recognise that, and this is a practical way we can as a government—and as a parliament hopefully—recognise the contribution that these men and women paid.

The next schedule that I wish to speak on is the New South Wales government’s introduction of a levy on insurance policy holders to contribute to funding for their state emergency services. As the Deputy Speaker well knows, I am a Victorian and we have sister organisations in Victoria—the CFA and the Victoria State Emergency Services. Having seen over the last couple of years the very significant contribution that the CFA and the SES have made to the Victorian community, I fully appreciate the need to have properly and adequately funded emergency organisations to provide a level of protection for us, whether it is responding to wildfire, which has been a significant issue in Victoria over the last few years, or flooding—this winter seems to have been a particularly wet one. I think it is quite reasonable that the New South Wales government puts in place mechanisms to ensure that their emergency organisations are properly funded to provide that level of protection to all of us.

The third component that I wish to speak to is the issue of claims for travel expenses. Under changes to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, ‘an eligible person may be paid travelling expenses incurred in obtaining treatment’. I think that is quite reasonable. We live in a country that is huge. Many in our veterans community come from rural and regional areas, and travel is a significant impost. I warmly welcome the provision, which will enable travel expenses to be recognised as appropriate. Under the arrangements the time limit for submitting a claim for travel expenses in the above circumstances is three months, and there are no exceptional circumstances provisions to extend that period. I think it is quite reasonable that people are given a window to make their claim for travel expenses and I think three months is adequate time to do that.

The fourth point I wish to touch on is the giving of notices and other documents. A Federal Court decision highlighted the absence of provisions within the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 setting out the requirements for service of written notices or other documents under each of those acts. The court found that there were no provisions in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act that specified how a person was to be served with a written notice. As a consequence, section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 was applicable to the circumstances of the case.

The amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and, of course, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 will require a number of entities under each act, such as the commission or a person’s service chief, to specify in writing the manner in which a notice or other document may be given to a person, and I think that is quite reasonable.

A number of the provisions under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act require persons to be given notices that affect them and may have, of course, legal consequences. According to the judgment, as I am informed, notices sent to a post office box or non-residential address would not be legally effective. I think that is a commonsense decision, and these amendments recognise that judgment. The amendments will ensure that notices and other documents that are served will be legally effective, and that is of course critically important.

This will also protect taxpayer funds in relation to the recovery of overpayments, and will ensure that time limits for appeal periods apply as they are intended to, and again that seems to me to be quite reasonable.

There are a number of other issues spelt out within the amendments which I will not go into. I do again just want to touch on this point: we have some 5,000 people within the broader Geelong area—again, across my seat and the neighbouring seat of Corio—who are paid one way or another and are recognised under the veterans affairs legislation. They have made an outstanding contribution to Australia, and I certainly continue to look forward to working with those veterans’ community organisations to ensure that the Gillard government responds in an appropriate way to their needs, recognising the significant service that they make, and I look forward to working with Minister Snowdon to ensure that we do deliver on that.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corangamite for his contribution and his comments and observations, and other speakers: the members for Shortland, Macquarie, Blair and Fadden. It is clear that there is no division on this issue in this parliament, and that is a very important thing.

As we know, the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 will make a variety of changes to veterans affairs portfolio legislation that will improve the ways in which we provide support to our veterans’ family members and dependants. You will have heard that included in the bill are changes that will provide eligibility for free cancer treatment to certain Australian Protective Service officers involved in patrolling the exclusion zone at Maralinga between 1984 and 1988. The officers will be included in the existing scheme that provides such treatment to Australian Defence Force members and Commonwealth employees who were involved in the British nuclear testing program during the 1950s and 1960s, and who were subsequently employed at Maralinga.

The bill will give veterans more time to make claims for non-treatment-related travel expenses, which is a very important thing. These changes will extend from three months to 12 months the period within which the non-treatment travel claims may be submitted for reimbursement. This change, as I am sure you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, will benefit veterans and their dependants who travel for non-treatment-related purposes such as attending claim reviews or obtaining medical evidence.

The bill will also enable Defence Service Homes Insurance to contribute to the cost of providing emergency services in New South Wales through the payment of the State Emergency Service levy. As you heard from the member for Corangamite, the levy will be collected from Defence Service Homes Insurance policyholders and remitted to the New South Wales government.

The bill also includes minor changes to improve the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Council, firstly by making it clear that the Specialist Medical Review Council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical Authority to not amend a statement of principles. Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you would now know, the changes will provide for the Specialist Medical Review Council to review both versions of a statement of principles that relate to a particular condition even if an applicant has requested a review of only one of the statements of principles. The bill will also clarify the relevant provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to ensure that compensation will continue to be payable to eligible members in the circumstances where an initial war- or defence-caused injury or disease is aggravated or materially contributed to by service under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill will also ensure that the payment of a pension to the dependant of a veteran who is a prisoner of war will continue as originally intended after the commencement of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.

Other changes made by the bill will protect the interests of compensation recipients under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act by requiring that certain compensation payments are made to an account maintained in a compensation recipient’s name, which of course is most important. Additionally, the bill will also enable Victoria Cross and decoration allowance recipients to receive both Victoria Cross or decoration allowances under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and a Victoria Cross or decoration allowance or annuity from a foreign country. Finally, the bill will enable certain entities under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to specify the manner in which notices and other documents may be served. This will ensure that the legal effect of such notices and documents is protected. Changes made by the bill demonstrate this government’s commitment to continually review, update and improve the services and support we provide to our current and former military personnel and their families. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

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