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

I rise to lend some comment on the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (MRCA Supplement) Bill 2011, and in doing so I acknowledge across the chamber the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Mike Kelly, a veteran of Somalia and a man of great military experience—someone who you would expect, with a government that likes to flaunt its credentials in defence, the military and, indeed, national security, would be at the forefront of all that the government would do in this. He started his parliamentary life, of course, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence but then, in the government’s great wisdom in hindsight, it moved him to Forestry, Fisheries and Agriculture. That speaks volumes about how much this government cares about veterans, defence and national security. It is important that we look not at what a government says but at what a government does. When it takes its finest mind on defence and puts it with trees and fish, it sends a very clear message that that is how this government views defence.

This bill will bear testimony—be under no doubt—to the wanton indifference this government has to defence issues. The MRCA supplement bill seeks to make only minor amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. Indeed, it simply seeks to clarify entitlements with regard to certain allowances and supplements in order to ensure eligible widows and widowers are not overpaid. It is ostensibly a housekeeping bill. I agree with the government that the housekeeping amendments are appropriate. However, they are only appropriate and only necessary because the Labor government failed to conduct its appropriate due diligence when introducing the changes to the way that these certain pensions were paid. This bill is once more symptomatic of Labor’s piecemeal approach to managing the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio and caring for Australian veterans and defence.

Not only do you look at the way they act in moving the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence—a highly capable and professional military officer and politician—into trees and fishes; you simply need to look at the wide variety of mistakes in legislation that continues to bear testimony to this. So let us look at the background of this to understand how Labor got to this farcical position of having to legislate to fix up one more of its errors. On 20 September 2009, the Labor government changed the way certain pensions were paid under the pension reform package. The MRCA supplement became payable from 20 September 2009 and replaced the telephone and pharmaceutical allowances that were payable prior to that date. Under the MRC Act, compensation pension payments to eligible veterans and their dependants are paid weekly. However, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Social Security Act 2001, payments are paid fortnightly.

Furthermore, under the MRC Act a weekly payment can be converted to a lump sum. Prior to 20 September 2009, where a lump sum was selected, the wholly dependent partner continued to receive the fortnightly pharmaceutical allowance. However, after 20 September, the pharmaceutical allowance became part of the weekly war widow pension and is therefore included in the calculation of the total lump sum payment. Stay with me; I know it is difficult for the Labor Party to comprehend where this is going. The result of these changes and these moves and the result of these legislative amendments that the government put in, and the reason for the introduction of this very bill, is that some widows who may have already received a lump sum, including the equivalent pharmaceutical allowance, may also be receiving the MRCA supplement. This could lead to a so-called double-dip of entitlements. Notwithstanding provisions which already exist in the legislation to prevent multiple entitlements from occurring, this bill seeks to clarify arrangements relating to the MRCA supplement and lump sum payments after 20 September 2009. The Labor Party is simply fixing up the mess that it legislated itself into.

Clearly, we support the bill. We support standing up for veterans and our defence community. We support Labor fixing up their own abhorrent mistakes. The end result is more important for the nation, and it is good that Labor comes forward and says mea culpa, indeed mea maxima culpa—‘I have really stuffed up’.

But this is not about just the area of this particular bill. The issue of wanton disregard for veterans goes wider but is symptomatic and links through to this bill. Indeed, the coalition and the veteran and ex-service community remain very sceptical of the Gillard Labor government’s agenda when it comes to managing the full gamut of what is a complex Veterans’ Affairs portfolio. It continues to be piecemeal in its detail, especially when unfortunately the government has dictated that only one quarter of the time of the minister—Minister Snowdon, who I have some high regard for; I think he is a very decent man—can be spent on the incredibly complex portfolio of Veterans’ Affairs.

The Howard government had a full-time veterans’ affairs minister. That is the regard in which we held the veterans in our community—a full-time minister. Again, as we started we said, ‘Don’t look at what the Labor government says. Look at what they do.’ They have taken a highly competent former officer and parliamentarian in Mike Kelly and put him in charge of fishes and trees. We have Minister Snowdon, who is the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel—another highly complex area—the Minister for Indigenous Health—yet another highly complex area—and now the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of Anzac. I do not care how good a minister you are; you cannot deal with four challenging areas especially Indigenous Health, Defence Science and Personnel, and Veterans’ Affairs. I do not care if Minister Snowdon is Superman. He is clearly and utterly unable, as anyone would be, to manage such portfolios in diverse and complex areas. But that is the degree of contempt and disdain that this government has for veterans and the defence community. Do not listen to what the government says. Watch what the government does.

Because you have a minister so overtaxed and across so many different areas, he is just not able to be across the detail. It is not his fault. This is what the Labor government dealt him. That is why we are seeing this bill today fixing a mistake from a previous bill yesterday. Perhaps that explains how the Labor government dropped the ball on the funding for the Australian War Memorial. Again, that is symptomatic of the ball being dropped by an overworked minister. This government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into providing the bare minimum of funding to ensure services at the War Memorial were maintained. It was an 11th-hour rescue package; it was at the 11th minute of the 11th hour. The Gillard Labor government denied there was even a problem and dismissed the growing calls from the Council of the Australian War Memorial. In fact, letters between the Council of the Australian War Memorial and the former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Alan Griffin, belled the cat on the memorial’s financial crisis more than 11 months ago.

The government were dragged kicking and screaming to provide the funding. They did not even come close to matching the coalition’s $25 million commitment for the refurbishment of the World War I galleries. Credit should ago to my colleague the honourable senator Michael Ronaldson for fighting so hard to ensure that the War Memorial, an institution of national and historical significance, remains properly funded.

This bill, as once again it is incredibly disappointing to say, is just another in a series of ad-hoc, on-the-run policy revisions carried out by a government that moves its competent ministers out, overtaxes its current ministers and ensures that these mistakes continue to occur. I accept the provisions of the bill. I think we all agree that they are appropriate to ensure that people do not find themselves inadvertently double-dipping, especially widows finding themselves in the dreadful position where perhaps not of their own making or doing they are forced to repay funds back to the Commonwealth—as if the horror of losing their partner were not enough. I accept that these are appropriate to ensure that does not happen. But this bill is only necessary because this was not done properly in the first place. It is a failure of the duty of a minister to ensure they know what they are doing.

I find it fascinating to look at what Minister Snowdon said in his second reading speech on this bill. Poor minister, so overworked and I am sure he did not write his own speech: if he had he would not have said this:

The bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to continually review, update and refine our operations to provide the optimum level of services and support to our current and former military personnel and their dependants.

May I say gently that I take enormous offence at the statement from the minister. Last week—only seven days ago—the government released the Review of military compensation arrangements report. Was it a week late? Was it a month late? It was 12 months late. How the minister can stand in the House and say that they are refining their operations to provide ‘the optimum level of services’ when they provide responses 12 months late is beyond me. I encourage the government to do this: try that optimum level of service out there in the community. Say to Centrelink, ‘Don’t bother responding to your constituents for 12 months’, because clearly that is an optimum level of service. Say to the department of health: ‘Don’t bother getting back to people requesting a district of workforce shortage determination for 12 months’, because that is an optimum level of service. I would say this to the parliamentary secretary when your constituents want you to look at forestry, fisheries and other areas: ‘Don’t reply to them, Sir. You’ve got 12 months.’ That is because your senior minister says that is an optimum level of service. I think this government has hit an all-time low in defining what service levels are. It is not surprising given that 90 per cent of their frontbench is from the unions with no experience in business. They would know if they had business experience what an optimum level of service was.

Secondly, the government is yet to release its response to the Podger review report, also known as the Report of the review into military superannuation arrangements. The Labor government has had this review, which deals with all veterans’ issues, especially as to superannuation, for three years. So three years and still no response on the Podger review, but clearly, as Minister Snowdon says, they are reviewing, updating and refining their operations to provide an optimum level of service!

Thirdly, how can the minister possibly argue that he, along with the Gillard Labor government, is acting to provide optimum support for former military personnel and their dependants when they are actively trying to block right now, at this very second in the other place, the coalition’s Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2010? The reality is the coalition is the only party in the parliament who have a full range of full-time shadow ministers committed to ensuring an optimum level of service for our veteran community and our defence force. We are the only party that is properly engaged with military superannuation when it comes to indexation. We are the only party who want to see reviews paid for at taxpayer expense to be properly released in appropriate time frames to allow ex-service organisations and the community to respond to them. If this Labor government were serious about reform and about caring for veterans and their dependants—which they claim—and if this government were demonstrating their commitment—in the minister’s own words to ‘continually review, update and refine our operations to provide an optimum level of service and support to our current and former personnel’—then I would implore them to support the coalition’s bill in the Senate right now. I have come straight from the Senate to here, where the minister for finance is railing against our bill whilst the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has been standing there saying that they are providing an optimum level of service and support to our veterans. There is a huge disconnect between both houses of parliament.

I remind the government that before the 2007 election, and leading into the 2010 election, they said they were committed to fair indexation of pensions and committed to supporting our veterans. I say to them now: where the rubber hits the road, when there is a bill in the Senate right now being debated this second, let us see where your level of commitment is to provide an optimum level of service and support to veterans. I hold a degree of respect for the parliamentary secretary, Mike Kelly. I know he wrote to the minister for finance imploring him to stand up and accept what they did in 2007 and index the military pensions. I know he wrote, and that is a testament to the man on the other side of the chamber. But the government did not listen to its own expert on defence and veterans’ issues. The one person who actually knows what the hell is going in Defence was not listened to. And that is to the enduring shame of the Labor Party.

In wrapping up, may I say we support the housekeeping bill. We do not want to see widows or widowers inadvertently left out in the cold, faced with a bill from the Commonwealth. That is not how we want to see those who have given so much for our nation. We support Labor fixing its stuff-ups. It is not controversial, but it does demonstrate—it does show without a shadow of a doubt; it does put clearly on the table for all to see—that this government is not across the Veterans portfolio, it is not across the Defence portfolio and it is not committed to those who served and who serve our nation. If it were, it would have full-time ministers. If it were, it would look at the expertise on its front bench and it would use that expertise where it is best able to be used. If it were, it would back up and fulfil the promises it made to the Australian people. I implore the government to get its house in order on veterans and defence issues or, I guarantee, the nation will make sure its house is put in order.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his contribution. I feel like I should be tithing my wage to him for the wonderful comments that he made during his speech. I want to acknowledge here that the member for Fadden is genuinely concerned about our defence members and our veterans. I have absolutely no doubt about that. We had very genuine collaboration on many issues concerning veterans matters, particularly when I had responsibility for the honours and awards aspect of the Defence portfolio. But I have also noticed that the member, in his time in parliament, has acquired some very impressive acting skills. If we want to deal with the entire spectrum of the issue of veterans affairs and defence matters, we will see that they do not all begin in 2007; they have quite a long history that goes back during the 12 years of the Howard government. I could throw out a few one-liners that would encapsulate many of those issues—things like ‘Seasprite’, ‘LCMs’, ‘Manoora and Kanimbla’ et cetera. I could go on and on, and a calculation could be applied there that would stretch to the billions of dollars.

I could also talk about the superannuation issue and the fact that there were 12 years during which the Howard government might have thought they could deal with that issue. I do not know where they were on that front; ‘missing in action’ might be the description we could apply. Nothing happened. If resolving this superannuation question were such a big issue—and certainly there are matters to be discussed there—why did nothing happen for 12 years? The bill that the member refers to is, I think, quite despicable and I do not support it. It is a divide and rule measure which does not also deal with the issue of civilian superannuated pensioners. But it is very hard to take the opposition seriously when they had the opportunity to do some of the things they have been talking about and did not do them.

But I am very proud of the measures that have been taken by this government in relation to veterans entitlements. It is a spectacular record. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (MRCA Supplement) Bill 2011 is a housekeeping bill, as the member has quite correctly pointed out. You will need to do housekeeping from time to time if you are a reformist government that takes on the big issues. Of course, you do not need to do housekeeping if you do not ever do anything—if you do not actually take on reform. These things are easier to do if you just sit back and say, ‘I’m not going to fix this; I’m not going to fix that.’ The legislative liability then becomes quite small. You can have quite an easy life, which is what we saw during the Howard years, the Rip Van Winkle years when nothing was done. This is a reformist government. This is a government that is determined and prepared to take on the big challenges, and the challenges of veterans affairs are some of the largest. There are so many things that need to be cleared up in this space.

The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (MRCA Supplement) Bill 2011 deals with a situation that arose in relation to an election that wholly dependent partners of deceased members could make in relation to lump sum payments or weekly payments. In the six-month period when they were able to make that election there were anomalies that were evident in our overall pension reform package in relation to the pharmaceutical allowance. This legislation will clarify that position. There is also an aspect that needed to be cleared up and tidied up in relation to double dipping, which is perhaps the shorthand way of expressing that. This legislation clears up the conflicting aspects of the application of the Social Security Act, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the MRCA.

I feel that we should respond to the challenges that have been thrown out there by the honourable member for Fadden in his advocacy, which I applaud. Let us get the facts straight. Let us run through some of the things this government has done for veterans. Let us start with the fair indexation for all veterans compensation pensions from 20 March 2008, where we indexed those pensions to both CPI and MTAWE. The PBLCI, the pensioner and beneficiary living cost index, has also been employed to make sure that we have an accurate reflection of the actual cost of living for these recipients. This was a significant reform measure. There was also an increase in the extreme disablement adjustment pension of $15 per fortnight from 20 March 2008 and an increase in non-economic loss compensation payments from 2008.

The general rate table to assess payment amounts has been increased by five per cent. We have improved the indexation of the war widows domestic allowance so that from 20 March 2008 that allowance has been increased by $10 per fortnight. We have provided $50 million for national transport concessions so that seniors card holders who use public transport services outside their home state can have that access and facility, as applied in their states and territories, right across the nation—a very significant measure. We provided extra financial support through our Making Ends Meet initiative. The utilities allowance for eligible pensioners was increased to $500 per annum paid in quarterly instalments. The seniors concession allowance was also increased and the telephone allowance raised.

Secure and sustainable pension reforms have benefited over 320,000 of our service pensioners and war widows to the tune of more than $1.1 billion announced in the 2009-10 budget. Those new payments commenced on 20 September 2009 so that single service pensioners and war widows now receive up to $32.49 extra per week and service pensioners on the couples rate receive up to $10.14 extra per week combined. Those on disability pensions who qualify for the service pension, age pension or disability support pension, including over 80 per cent of the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners, receive the increase in line with their financial circumstances.

We have increased funding for the Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training program by an additional $1 million. A comprehensive Australian Defence Force Mental Health Lifecycle Package has been introduced. We have improved mental health support by implementing the two studies into this issue that were instituted by this government, and $92 million has been allocated for the implementation of both reports. Key initiatives such as case coordinators in DVA are now in place supporting clients with complex needs, and other recommendations are still being implemented.

We have got extended repeat prescriptions for the chronically ill so that 290,000 veterans and war widows with chronic health conditions can now get up to a 12-month supply on a single prescription for some medication, reducing the number of times they need to see a doctor just to obtain prescriptions. We have included young ex-service people with disabilities in the Commonwealth State and Territory Disability Agreement. That commenced on 1 January 2009 and includes a commitment to ensure that these younger veterans have access to specialist disability services where DVA programs are not available to provide the care and support they need and require.

We have improved community care and support for those with chronic and complex conditions. We are beginning a new, $152.7 million initiative to increase community based support for those with chronic conditions and complex care needs who are at risk of unnecessary hospitalisation. The program includes $28 million to expand the Veterans’ Home Care program by introducing a new service to target older, frailer veterans, who are most at risk. An estimated 17,000 veterans and war widows will benefit from that initiative alone. We are providing zero-real-interest loans for aged-care facilities. We have been delivering that initiative since 17 September 2008, supporting the development and expansion of aged care services. We intend to extend this initiative, providing a further $300 million in loans to support the development of up to 2,500 aged care places.

We have extended support for the families of veterans. We have extended the income support supplement to widows without dependents. This commenced in July 2008 and involved the abolition of the age restriction on the payment. We had the Vietnam veterans family study. We extended bereavement payments for single TPI and EDA veterans who die without sufficient assets to pay for a funeral. That enabled those families dealing with the loss of their loved ones without sufficient assets to pay for a funeral to get support, and that commenced on 1 July 2008. We had the automatic granting of war widow’s pension to widows of TTI—temporarily totally incapacitated—and intermediate rate pensioners. The automatic granting of that commenced on 1 July 2008.

We have empowered the ex-service community. We have increased the financial assistance for ex-service organisations with an additional $5 million. Total funding of $14.9 million will be made available over four years. There is a new consultation framework with the Prime Minister’s advisory council for these ex-service organisations, because even though we have done so much there will always be more to do and issues that need to be addressed. We now have a permanent mechanism by which we can stay engaged with that stakeholder community to deliver the outcomes that are necessary. The council has met eight times now, and we have looked at a range of issues, including the Clarke review and the F-111 deseal-reseal issue, which was in a bit of a mess prior to this government coming on board. Other bodies have been established, including the ESO roundtable and a series of issues-based committees to advise both the Repatriation Commission and the government.

We have improved the operation of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs by establishing an interdepartmental working group to help deal with multiple agencies. We have formed a special claims unit that has cut processing times. We have revisited the recommendations of the Clarke review. We have implemented the issues that were not being dealt with and addressed issues such as the changes in access to pensions and health care under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act for former ADF British nuclear test participants using more generous and reasonable hypothesis-based standards of proof, and other measures including the reclassifying of the service of personnel on certain submarine special operations from peacetime to qualifying service. A number of other recommendations were referred to the review of military compensation arrangements that is expected to report by the end of the year.

We have established a DVA hotline to assist ex-service officials. We have maintained a separate and properly funded Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I am very proud of the things that we have done to clear up decades worth of issues in lack of recognition and problems that are outstanding in the honours and awards fields. That was a particularly pleasing aspect of what we have done. These things went back as far as the Second World War and included the small ships issue and the 2nd D&E Platoon recognition. There were also the Long Tan issues that were left in such a mess by the previous government; the recognition of escapees among prisoners of war; the Battle for Australia Day and Merchant Navy Day issues; and the implementation of the Post-Armistice Korean Service Review recommendations, which I know was so well and eagerly received by the wonderful Korean service veterans, who were long overdue to have that matter resolved. There was also the declaration of the Ballarat prisoner of war memorial as a national memorial. I am particularly proud of this, as my own grandfather has his name on that memorial as having survived the Burma-Thailand Railway experience. It is so important that we do honour and recognise the incredible experience that so many members of our Defence Force endured with great suffering. There is $10 million for an interpretive trail on the Western Front. There is the establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal, which took such a lot of effort and did receive bipartisan support, for which I thank the member for Fadden.

The Gillard government is now engaged in many other initiatives which will be put into place. Through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in 2010-11 we have seen funding of $12.1 billion, including the $6.9 billion for compensation and income support and $5.2 billion for health and health services. That is $1.3 billion more than was provided in the last coalition budget, and it is being provided over a period when DVA’s client numbers have decreased from around 440,000 to fewer than 380,000.

There are many other issues that would take me too long to go through, but they include issues to do with the Military Health Outcomes Program; reviewing aged-care needs of veterans; making community mental health more ex-service friendly; pharmaceutical reimbursement schemes; dealing with the longstanding mess that was left to us by the previous government on military superannuation and the Podger review; review of DVA funded ESO advocacy and welfare services; legacy of war-wounded personnel; et cetera et cetera.

I am particularly pleased with the $83 million that has been committed to implement improvements in mental health. We are pursuing new rehabilitation policies. We are very determined to make sure that our veterans receive the support that they deserve. Of course, there are many other issues that relate to how our service personnel deal with their day-to-day commitments in the Defence Force which are not well understood by the general community, and the risks and sacrifices they make. I take my hat off to them and I take this opportunity to salute them.

I also take this opportunity to thank two of my staff who did so much hard and excellent work in resolving many of these outstanding issues on honours and awards in particular. They are Mr Mark Sjolander of my office and Ms Elyse Gatt, known to us as Elsie. They did great work in liaising with these wonderful veterans and I am so pleased to see the outcomes that they have helped to deliver and the peace of mind and satisfaction that we have seen on those veterans’ faces. I commend this bill to the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to be speaking after the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who made that fine contribution on this matter. He is a sad loss to the defence establishment portfolio. I think his obvious and evident interest and skill in this field are going to be particularly missed by a government light-on for people with experience in and knowledge of defence and veterans’ affairs.

The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (MRCA Supplement) Bill 2011 is to correct an error in the previous legislation which produced an unintended consequence. On the surface of it, it can be quite common in governance in any jurisdiction that legislation is introduced which has unintended consequences, things that were not foreseen in the design of the legislation. In this one, as we know, it is a very serious matter in relation to widows. The unintended consequence arising from the amendments was that, where a member or a former member of the Defence Force died prior to 20 September 2009, if the decision of a wholly dependent partner to receive a lump sum was made after that date, the calculation of the lump sum payable was based on the law as it was at the date of death, meaning that in certain cases widows would have to repay large amounts from the lump sum. This was a completely unintended and undesirable outcome and I am sure that has the unanimous agreement of this House.

What this matter does show is an approach to government that is becoming the norm from this Labor government. They say on their own website—and I do not go to the Labor Party’s website regularly, but I did so in relation to an article I was researching on defence and veterans’ affairs—that, ‘Defence must be the first and highest priority of our national government.’ That is what it says in the Labor Party’s policy platform. Yet when you look at their defence portfolio and what is happening in veterans’ affairs and defence and the bill before us you do not get the sense that it is the first priority of the national government.

As someone with a military reserve background I want to endorse the notion that the first priority of our national government—the reason we have a national government in the first instance—is to protect this country, its citizens and its interests from foreign invaders and to protect our country’s economic and military interests overseas and our regional interests. That is our first priority as a government in Canberra and it must be our first priority. If something is your first priority, I think it deserves much more attention than it gets from this government. This bill is a good example of why that is so. We are going back and fixing up things that should have been fixed a long time ago because when they are not fixed they produce consequences that are undesirable for widows and for veterans in general.

We have seen a change in this government’s veterans affairs’ ministry and, I think, that is partly why we see legislation such as this. In 2007, the Rudd government’s Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin, came with a lot of promises for the veteran community. He had spent a lot of time arguing and lobbying on veterans affairs prior to the election, promising a lot and suggesting there would be a big improvement in the quality of veterans affairs outcomes in Australia on the election of the Rudd government. The Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—who, sadly, is no longer involved in the defence portfolio at all—listed quite a few good things that have been achieved. I thought it was a little bit dry and missing some obvious things. But one of the big things that the veterans community will tell you that they had promised to them by former Minister Griffin, and about which they had an understanding with this Labor government, was the issue of military superannuation.

When considering these sorts of veterans affairs bills that come before us, there is one bill that the veterans community wants to see pass through this House in the near future and that is the coalition’s bill to improve the indexation of the DFRDB and the DFRB superannuation pensions, the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2010. I want to get on the record my endorsement of the bill of the member for Fadden, the shadow minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel. Today marks a great step forward for veterans in Australia. We owe our veteran community so much. They have given this country so much service. We must not just think about how to improve the quality of outcomes to the veterans community from so many years ago; we have a job and a duty of care to think ahead for all these young diggers we have sent to Iraq, Afghanistan and into operations in our theatres in recent years who will be veterans and will have the same sets of veterans issues, albeit in different circumstances, that have arisen today.

When a veteran comes to my office, as they do regularly, and says to me they have to struggle to get an outcome from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, when they are clearly a veteran, when they clearly have an entitlement to something from the government in relation to their personal matter, I get very frustrated, as do so many members of this House. Why do we burden our veterans community with so much red tape, when we ask them to put so much on the line? It is true that there have been some improvements in the operation of veterans affairs matters. But there need to be more improvements. It is not inspiring that we have to go back and correct legislation because we have not thought about it properly in the first place.

If the Labor Party and the government were serious, the indexation of military superannuation would be their highest priority in relation to the veteran community. It is probably the No. 1 issue that is being spoken about out there at the moment today, other than individuals’ personal matters of concern with DVA.

The government have released the review of military compensation arrangements, which was released on 18 March. Again, when you consider the contention in the policy statement that ‘defence must be our highest priority,’ this review of military compensation arrangements is some 12 months late. Nevertheless, it is a significant review and of course the coalition has committed to extensive consultation on the review’s findings. But considering that this is a year overdue, you get the sense, yet again, that this vital part of our community is not being given the priority or the attention that it deserves.

We will extensively liaise with the ex-service community, the veteran community. I am conducting my consultations, particularly with the Castle Hill RSL, about the review of military compensation. We look forward to progress that does not take another year. Often, we think of a year in governmental terms as another review or another period of time to fix things and that it is acceptable. I think in relation to the circumstances of ordinary people’s lives, particularly veterans who are already suffering from individual problems and matters of concern in relation to compensation, that this is an extensive period of time. These people are getting older. Their compensation is a serious matter to them. There needs to be a greater sense of urgency in relation to our treatment of these vital people and this vital community.

I also endorse the purpose of this bill, which I have spoken about briefly in correcting an error. The member for Fadden made some very good points about our commitment to supporting the government on key initiatives. The Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry spoke about the government’s achievements in resolving issues to do with honours and about correcting some of the things that had been of concern for some time. They had the full support of the coalition. I note that, in opposition, we have not taken a partisan or destructive approach in relation to veterans’ affairs. We are more urging the government to get on with the things they need to get on with.

When you look at the military superannuation reform, the coalition’s bill which is presently before the Senate—I think it was being discussed today by the shadow minister for defence—says to the government, ‘Here is a way out. We are providing you with the bill. You have promised it, we have talked about it and the veterans’ community desperately want it. Here is an opportunity for you to just get on board and deliver this vital reform.’ The parliamentary secretary spoke about a reforming government and that this bill was an example of why they are such a reforming government. When they do reform they say, ‘We have to keep doing these amendments and updating bills because we are so reforming’. If we are so reforming, let us do some real reform that will vastly impact on the lives of all those people out there on the DFRDB schemes. This change has been called for by the ex-service community. It has had their full support for so long.

While this bill is not controversial, and it has the coalition’s support—especially in clarifying the arrangements under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004—we do urge the government to ensure that treatment of Defence personnel, and particularly the treatment of veterans—our ex-service personnel and community, not just of the past but of the future—is done in the best way possible. When we have people of the quality of the member for Fadden in our portfolios we are really saying to the government that we have people of real experience and substance in the Defence and veterans’ fields, people who understand the urgency and the need for reform and better approaches from government to the treatment of this vital community. I urge the government to ensure that they make Defence and veterans’ affairs the first priority of the national government.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on behalf of all servicemen and women in the electorate of Dawson, people who make a proud commitment to this country, and who deserve careful consideration of their needs and welfare.

The electorate of Dawson has a large number of military and ex-military personnel, taking in suburbs such as Annandale, Wulguru and Townsville quite near to where Lavarack Barracks and the 1RAR are a dominant part of the local community and the local economy. Regional Queensland has always maintained a strong connection with their ex-servicemen and women, and Dawson is no different from that. Regional towns in Dawson are small enough that residents regularly pass by war memorials on a daily basis.

In fact, many of the small communities have planted mango or fig trees to line avenues in honour of the local men who served and made the ultimate sacrifice in the wars that defined our country. The Eimeo or Pleystowe communities have those trees, for instance. They planted a tree for each of those brave men who volunteered their lives. Those tree-lined avenues are still sacred ground for today’s community because the community respects the commitment that those servicemen and women made.

In return for their commitment though, we as a nation must make certain commitments of our own. The federal government supports veterans and war widows in a number of ways, but sometimes that delivery is not perfect. The delivery of allowances to war widows was not perfect, and there were some unintended consequences which needed to be addressed. In clarifying the legislation, the amendment bill that we speak on today is welcomed by the Liberal-National coalition.

The bill may still not be perfect, but at least it moves a step closer. I understand that these amendments will avoid a situation where a war widow is inadvertently receiving benefits that she perhaps is not entitled to. We must also accept that imperfect delivery may work the other way as well, and sometimes the consequences of an imperfect delivery are far more damaging. The human face of failed delivery in the Dawson electorate in this regard is Mr Fred Collett. Mr Collett is an ex-serviceman who fought for his country and endured hardship for his country. He followed orders, risked his life and survived through one of the worst wars this planet has ever seen—World War II.

Mr Collett is 101 years old, and has been bypassed in the delivery of a commitment made to our servicemen and women. Fred Collett has been penalised for doing his job—penalised for following orders. He had the audacity as a prisoner of war in Greece to escape in a wooden boat and make his way over the sea for three weeks to warn fellow soldiers of an enemy advance. Almost 70 years after that escape, the problem for Mr Collett is that he escaped. When the government paid $25,000 in compensation to POWs, Fred did not qualify. He did not qualify because he escaped.

Since the introduction of the compensation, around 2,500 POWs have received the benefit but almost 800 more have failed to qualify. They were given hope when Mr Collett’s case went before the Federal Court. Unfortunately, he was again denied that compensation last year, even though the Federal Court Justice John Logan ruled that Mr Collett had indeed been a POW. Justice Logan said in his finding that Mr Collett was a POW from the moment his unit surrendered but spending two hours in the surrender area did not constitute residence. He said efforts to escape and rejoin the unit proved Mr Collett ‘conspicuously and commendably did his duty’.

Fred Collett may be 101, but he knows when he is copping the rough end of the pineapple. He is no longer up to taking the legal battle any further, but he should not have to. When I spoke with him yesterday he was still dirty on the government for rejecting his entitlement. In fact, he pointed out the stupidity of the situation by saying that he had been penalised for basically soldiering on in Africa, for doing his job. And he is right. He did what he was supposed to do. He fought a brave fight, he escaped and he went on to keep fighting. Now, he no longer has the strength to continue the fight with this government.

Today I call on the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to review his case, to consider the facts, to show some compassion and to make an ex gratia payment to this soldier and other soldiers like him while there is still time to recognise what they have done for their country. Mr Collett is not only soldier being let down by the military and the federal government. Even today soldiers are penalised for doing their duty. We have the absurd situation where special forces soldiers face court martialling for killing people in battle—in the heat of the moment, in the middle of a hostile encounter, where no rational man or woman would expect them to act differently.

I do not believe that the Defence Legal Services is living up to our commitment to our soldiers or at least the commitment we should be giving our soldiers. Our retired military personnel still have to deal with an imperfect system and some of the flaws can be addressed simply by using an up-to-date life expectancy table. As I understand it, the DFRDB Act calculates how much to reduce retired pay due to commutation of part of that income stream using a life expectancy table that was issued in 1963.

Does that make a lot of difference? Quite a lot, in fact. A 44-year-old male has a life expectancy of another 28.25 years according to that table, but, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics life table, he can expect to live for another 37.2 years. That is a difference of nearly nine years. When this is translated into dollar terms, it is a reduction in retired pay of $851.65 per year. The delivery is not right and fixing the delivery is as simple as updating the life expectancy table.

It is an imperfect system and we may never have it perfect, but we can strive to make it the best that we can. The Liberal-National coalition are committed to real reform of military superannuation. We are the only ones in this parliament committed to that reform. There are flaws with the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme and it is the Liberal-National coalition that have brought a bill into this parliament to address those flaws. We want to see the DFRDB and DFRB superannuants over the age of 55 have their pensions indexed in the same manner as the service pension and other Australian government income support pensions.

The ex-service community have recognised the flaw and are fully onboard with the changes outlined in the coalition’s bill in order to fix them. They are changes that make sense in the same way that changes outlined in the amendment bill we are addressing today make sense. We support these changes and we call on the other parties in this parliament and the government to support those changes that make sense where that occasion arises.

By remembering the commitment our service men and women give to us and have given to us and ensuring we honour a commensurate commitment to them, we can continue to monitor benefit schemes for any inequities and flaws to continually provide better outcomes. We can walk down an avenue lined with mango trees, perhaps in Eimeo, and think about what that represents. We can think about who paid the ultimate price. We can think about those who lived through those ordeals, people like Fred Collett, and we can think about how we treat them. If we are fair dinkum, we will see where the system is not right and we will fix the system.

Fred helped build this nation for a century and he deserves better than being penalised for doing a good job. Again I appeal to the finance minister to take a walk down a memorial avenue of mango trees in my electorate, even if it is just a virtual walk, and see why making an ex gratia payment to this man is the right thing to do.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (MRCA Supplement) Bill 2011 that is before this chamber and indicate, as others have in this debate, that the coalition will support this bill. It is noncontroversial; in fact, it goes some way towards making sure that we do not have an unintended consequence continue. The bill effectively clarifies arrangements under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act relating to payment of certain allowances to war widows. This bill is necessary because of an unintended consequence arising from the government’s changes to pensions as part of the Harmer review in 2009. I am pleased that both sides of politics were able to come together to ensure that we do not have a situation arise where eligible war widows are inadvertently receiving benefits they are not properly entitled to and which would result in a debt being owed to the Commonwealth.

The veterans community, both war widows and more broadly, is a crucial part of the fabric of the community in my seat of Moncrieff. Gold Coast city has one of the larger veterans populations in Australia. I am certainly very pleased and proud to be a strong advocate for my veterans community in doing what I can to be both an ambassador and a representative for them in this chamber. There is an array of issues for the veterans community that, although not a central part of this bill, remain ongoing issues of concern to them.

Over the years I have been honoured to work very closely with so many fine advocates from the veterans community. I think immediately of groups such as the TPI Association, Gold Coast Legacy, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, and of course the work that is done by the three RSL clubs in my electorate—at Nerang, Southport and Surfers Paradise—and the advocates in each of those clubs. More broadly, there are other community groups, such as the Korean Veterans Association and those who represent the strong work that was done by the British Occupation Forces. Each of those groups—and I have named just some of them—play a crucial role as advocates, and as conduits for veterans and their loved ones with respect to the entitlements that are available to them and the way in which those entitlements are handled.

One of the best things I have done, if I might put it that way, was to start a veterans kitchen cabinet. I hold a roundtable discussion with representatives of the ex-service organisations in my electorate about every six months or so. It is a chance for us all to come together and speak about what can be done with respect to veterans’ entitlements and issues such as military rehabilitation and compensation available to members of the military. In that vein, I see it as a central part of my role to represent them and their needs and to be an advocate for them in this parliament. I have been pleased to work with the coalition minister when we were in government and with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, now that we are in opposition, in a proactive way and in the best interests of the veterans community.

There are a number of veterans’ projects with significance, both in their symbolic value and also their impact on the livelihoods of veterans and their loved ones, that are taking place in my electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast. I welcome the amazing efforts that George Friend and the Rotary clubs on the Gold Coast have been making with respect to the Kokoda memorial at Cascade Gardens. I supported very strongly their push to have that memorial recognised as a memorial of national significance, working alongside the Gold Coast City Council and others to make sure that that has the support and backing of the local community. Unfortunately on this occasion for veterans, it was not deemed to be of a scale, design and standard appropriate for a memorial of national significance, so it was not accepted. But I intend to keep being an advocate and keep pushing on behalf of my veterans community for it to be recognised as a memorial of national significance.

Very shortly, the Korean Veterans Association will also be looking at putting a memorial alongside the Kokoda memorial in the Cascade Gardens. I know the work that is being undertaken by Paul Findlay from the Gold Coast’s TPI Association, who are looking at transferring their facility and meeting place to Cascade Gardens. We are developing a real epicentre of veterans work and veterans groups at Cascade Gardens, at Broadbeach on the Gold Coast. In this respect as well, I want to work alongside them to achieve the outcomes they are after.

More broadly, I am mindful that the government currently has the Campbell Review of military compensation arrangements before it. I welcome the government’s release of the review’s findings on Friday, 18 March, not that long ago. I note that the review is some 12 months late; notwithstanding that, it is a significant review. I am committed to liaising with my veterans groups to hear their thoughts as a result of the review, take on board their feedback and work constructively with them, and then feed that back through both the shadow minister and the minister to make sure that, over the period of consultation between now and 30 June this year, we are able to improve military compensation arrangements for the benefit of not only those who have made tremendous sacrifices for us by putting themselves in harm’s way but also their loved ones.

This bill before us, although a modest bill in terms of its effect, is an important bill and it has the coalition’s support. When it comes to veterans matters, I want to ensure that there remains a strong sense of bipartisanship, because all of us as representatives in this chamber recognise that our veterans are the ones who have ultimately been at the front end, at the pointy end, of upholding the values and freedoms that we all enjoy as Australians. In that sense, as an ambassador for them I look forward to working with my veterans community and making sure that, when it comes to military rehabilitation and compensation matters, we always keep the needs of the veterans community front of mind.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (MRCA Supplement) Bill 2011. The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, relating to the payment of certain allowances to war widows. This is necessary due to unintended consequences of the government’s changes to pensions as part of the Harmer review which amended legislation in 2009. The act provides compensation for and other benefits to current and former members of the Australian Defence Force who suffered an injury or disease due to service on or after 1 July 2004. It also provides for the dependants of members whose deaths were the result of an injury or disease due to service on or after 1 July 2004. The bill ensures that wholly dependent partners of a deceased Defence Force member or former member will be eligible to receive the MRCA supplement, while preventing duplicate payments of the MRCA supplement to persons who are entitled to equivalent payments under a different act.

I acknowledge that this bill could potentially affect 105 war widow pensioners in my electorate of Solomon who are current clients of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs—as of 1 October 2010. However, it is important to note that, while this is largely a housekeeping bill, it will ensure that the benefits are not paid to those who are not entitled to them under this act and who, as a result, will no longer have the potential to be in debt to the Commonwealth.

Another veterans affairs issue that the parliament is debating at the moment—it is currently before the Senate—is the coalition’s military superannuation reform legislation, the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2010. The bill will improve the indexation of Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits, DFRDB, Scheme superannuation pensions from 1 July this year. I am pleased to say that this means that eligible superannuants aged 55 and over on 1 July 2011 will have their military superannuation pensions indexed in the same way as Australian government income support pensions such as the service pension. This is the single biggest issue in the veterans and ex-service community. It has long been called for, and it has the full support of the ex-service community. I remind other members here today that the coalition remains the only party in the parliament committed to military superannuation reform. I take this opportunity to call on all parties in this parliament and, in particular, the Labor Party to support this legislation when it is debated in the House.

The coalition welcomes the release of the review of the military compensation arrangements, which were publicly released on 18 March. It should be noted, however, that this review is some 12 months late. Nevertheless, this is a significant review into a new and complex piece of legislation.

The coalition is committed to an extensive consultation on the review’s findings and is pleased that the Gillard Labor government has agreed to a period of consultation until 30 June 2011. During this consultation, the coalition will endeavour to liaise with key stakeholders in the service, ex-service and veteran community about the recommendations in the review of the military compensation arrangements.

Finally, with Anzac Day—a national day of remembrance in Australia and New Zealand to commemorate the lives lost and honour those members of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps who fought at Gallipoli and Turkey during World War I—under five weeks away, it is a very timely welcome to the eleventh-hour rescue package for the Australian War Memorial. This is despite the fact that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into making an announcement, which is an absolute utter disgrace.

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

Ha ha ha!

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may laugh, Member for Lingiari, but we know what was going on behind the scenes. The $25 million commitment from the coalition to refurbish the World War I galleries is yet to be matched by the Gillard Labor government. As members of this place should be aware, the Australian War Memorial combines a shrine, a world-class museum and an extensive archive. The memorial’s purpose is to commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war. Its mission is to assist Australians to remember, interpret and understand the Australian experience of war and its enduring impact on Australian society. This is a very important part of our history. The coalition will therefore be looking for a firm financial commitment from this government in this year’s budget to complete the redevelopment ahead of the ANZAC centenary in 2015.

I have earlier this year in the House mentioned the commemorative services held to mark the 69th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. The bombings are a significant part of the history of Darwin, the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia. Like Anzac Day, these commemorations have enormous significance for those who were in Darwin during the air raids, today’s Territorians and Australian Defence Force personnel past and present. I hope that this government will ensure that there is appropriate funding in the budget for the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. It would also be useful if this event were included in our national curriculum, as it is an important historical event that all students should be aware of.

The seat of Solomon encompasses a number of Australian Defence Force military bases. With many personnel currently serving overseas, I feel that these issues are very important to my constituents, as one day these defence personnel will be veterans themselves. The Larrakeyah Barracks, which incorporates HMAS Coonawarra, is the main base for the Australian Defence Force in the Northern Territory. HMAS Coonawarra is a Royal Australian Navy base which is home to 12 fleet units of the Royal Australian Navy and located in the city of Darwin itself. RAAF Base Darwin, the Royal Australian Air Force base, shares its runway with the Darwin international airport. Robertson Barracks is one of the major Australian Army bases and is located in the outer suburb of Holtze. It is home to the 1st Brigade and the 1st Aviation Regiment. I remind you and those members here that many of my defence constituents are currently serving overseas and so it is important that this government ensure that it looks after these defence personnel both during their service and also after their service to this wonderful country.

In conclusion, the coalition supports this bill. As my colleague the member for Fadden mentioned earlier in this place, the coalition is committed to Australian veterans. This commitment is unlike that of the current Labor government, who in 2007 and again in 2010 committed to fair indexation of taxes and also committed to Australian veterans.

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

I firstly acknowledge the contributions to this debate by the members for Fadden, Eden-Monaro, Mitchell, Dawson, Moncrieff and Solomon. I am not so sure about the gratuitous advice which has come from some members of the opposition, and I am a bit concerned about their lack of knowledge about what actually goes on in government and their lack of knowledge of the history of the portfolio of veterans’ affairs.

I heard the member for Fadden being critical of the fact that I hold a number of portfolios. The member for Fadden, for whom I have some respect, should know better than most the significant benefits of having a veterans’ affairs minister and Defence personnel minister in the same portfolio. I say this because he should know that the coalition did it for at least the last four years that they were in office. The member for Fadden needs to reacquaint himself with what happened under the Howard government. Bruce Billson, the member for Dunkley, was the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. Dee-Anne Kelly, a former member of this place, was the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs from October 2004 to January 2007 and was also the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence.

We know, and they know, that the veteran community was also supportive of combining the veterans’ affairs and Defence personnel portfolios for the very obvious reason that ultimately we are dealing with the same group of people. Defence personnel who are currently serving members, serving this nation of ours in Afghanistan, will at some point become veterans, and some may be veterans already in the context of their service. Some may even be receiving entitlements under the veterans’ affairs portfolio as a result of their service, and we need to understand that that relationship between the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Defence is a crucial one. To have the Defence personnel side of the portfolio married to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in ministerial arrangements is good for both portfolios. I would have thought that the member for Fadden would have appreciated that, so I think that the sort of gratuitous advice and comments he made were quite unwarranted.

I might also make observations about the contributions by the members for Mitchell and Moncrieff that widows will have to repay significant amounts of money. That is just factually incorrect. No-one will have a debt as a result of this legislation. No payments will be required to be paid back and this bill simply ensures that widows get their correct entitlements. I would hope that these ill-informed members undertake to go into their communities and tell the truth, not mislead people by making comments which are palpably false. We are used to this from the opposition, because clearly they are not engaged in constructive discussion with government or indeed the community about what is good for this country. They are quite critical of us, and sometimes that might well be warranted, but in this particular instance it is not at all warranted. I would say to them: understand the facts of the matter and make sure that when you espouse your views about legislation such as this you actually deliver the correct interpretation of what the legislation delivers.

I am also a little bit bemused by comments made by members of the opposition about this government’s performance within the veterans’ affairs portfolio. We know that in the 12 years prior to 2007 the former Howard government—the government that these erstwhile members of a potential future government say they have some respect for—did almost nothing in veterans’ affairs. Since 2007 this government has delivered on a wide range of initiatives that benefit the veteran and Defence communities.

The opposition has criticised the government for the so-called delays on releasing the military compensation review. Again—and I know that butter would not melt in their mouths—the truth of it is that this is just an extraordinary comment from a party who refused to even consider reviewing the legislation prior to the 2007 election. Let us be clear: they refused to undertake a review of the legislation prior to the 2007 election. So it is passing cute that they should come into this place and criticise the government for undertaking a review and providing the capacity for people to comment on that review once we have released it, which was done last week.

I say to the opposition: if you think you are running government from the opposition, I have news for you. You are like a pimple on the elephant’s bum. Your impact upon us in terms of this portfolio is zero. We have made successive decisions, including the ones around the War Memorial, which were based on good public policy decision-making processes, including advice from the War Memorial and our own public service, not based on some comments—often hysterical—made by opposition members, including their spokesman on veterans’ affairs. We deliberated clearly on the need to ensure that the War Memorial was appropriately funded. We had discussions with our local members, one of whom is, astoundingly, sitting here next to me and I thank her for being here. It is her duty of course—not to be here with me, but the fact she is here.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s for you.

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

Oh, please! But I am absolutely very proud of the more than $8 million that has been made available to the War Memorial on an annual basis to increase its funding base. That is an increase of almost 25 per cent. Let us understand what we have done here. We have provided an increase of around 25 per cent, if not more, to the baseline funding of the Australian War Memorial. Ask yourselves this, members of the opposition: what did you do in that space? I am quite proud of the decision which has been made by this government, driven in this instance by the Prime Minister, who said to us—me and the Minister for Finance, Senator Wong—last October, ‘I want you to undertake a review of the financial arrangements of the Australian War Memorial and come back and give advice to cabinet.’ Which we did. On the leadership of the Prime Minister, that was acted upon and the result was the increased funding to the War Memorial. So let us not have any of this—I am not quite sure how you would describe it—‘view’ that is being expressed. I was very careful—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am conscious of the minister’s very flamboyant expressions. I appreciate them very well, and I am very thankful that he is being very careful.

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

Very careful! And to suggest that somehow or another this funding increase was a result of pressure from the opposition is just laughable. Absolutely laughable. As is the suggestion that we are putting the MRCA review recommendations out for public consultation because of pressure from them. What do they think we do in this place? We undertook the review. It was always behoven on us to make sure that that review was published and, of course, at the same time released for comment to inform the government of what people involved—the ex-service community organisations and other people with an interest in the area—thought of the issues involved in the MRCA review and to provide feedback to us prior to us making any final decisions on the outcome. Good public policy practice. Not something that came about as a result of any pressure or words from the opposition. So let us appreciate this. We have a very good Department of Veterans’ Affairs; we have very good, high-quality advice from that department. I have very good, high-quality staff and I do not need the sideline comments coming from opposition members who should be better informed of what goes on in government. I want to say to them: understand that when you are in government you accept responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities you have is to listen to advice. And that is what we do; we seek advice and I am pleased that we do so.

I conclude on this bill, which of course is what we are here for. This bill is not as it has been described by the opposition. This is a normal process of refining and reviewing legislation. That is it. Governments of both political persuasions have historically reviewed legislation and made minor amendments when required. There is nothing unusual about this. I know you would appreciate this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know you well and you know me well—probably unfortunately from your point of view. There is nothing unusual and the opposition is really clutching at straws to suggest otherwise. The changes to the MRCA supplement were as a result of significant income support reforms implemented by the government in 2009 and I am very pleased to be here summing up on this legislation. I thank all of the members who have contributed, even if some of their contributions were ill informed and wrongly based.

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.