Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2014, which is part of Labor's proud record in supporting our Defence Force personnel. We cannot exaggerate what we owe our service personnel, and ensuring they are properly supported when they return from service, especially in the case where there is an injury or illness, is one of the most important responsibilities of government. This bill will enable a relatively minor technical correction. It will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to retrospectively apply the methodology for calculating permanent impairment compensation to claims that have been the subject of claimant-initiated reconsideration by the commission, a review by the Veterans' Review Board, or a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

But this is part of a much bigger reform process that is about ensuring the government is providing appropriate support and compensation to Australia's veterans and ex-service personnel. As I have mentioned, the bill we are now debating is part of a reform process initiated by Labor, and I commend the government for continuing these reforms. On 8 April 2009 the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Alan Griffin, announced that there would be a review of military compensation arrangements to ensure the government is providing appropriate support and compensation to Australia's veterans and ex-service personnel. The review was conducted by a steering committee chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Ian Campbell PSM. The review report was released on 18 March 2011 and found the military compensation system to be fundamentally sound but noted that certain improvements could be made, particularly to permanent impairment compensation.

Labor's response to the review was announced in the 2012-13 budget. Labor committed $17.4 million over four years to implement 96 of the 108 recommendations of the review. The majority of these changes were implemented from 1 July 2013. They delivered improvements to the arrangements for compensation in health care, increased financial compensation for eligible members and families, and improved training for those who provide advice to veteran communities on entitlements. These were important reforms and I am pleased to say that they have maintained bipartisan support throughout. They were aimed at ensuring a more holistic and timely approach was taken to the support provided to veterans who are wounded or otherwise injured during their service.

What does this legislation do? When the commission commenced its review of transitional permanent impairment calculations to apply the new methodology, a technical barrier in the existing legislation was detected. This barrier had the effect of preventing the retrospective recalculation of transitional permanent impairment compensation in certain circumstances. The provisions of this bill operate so that the commission is able to retrospectively apply the methodology for calculating permanent impairment compensation to claims that have been the subject of claimant initiated reconsideration by the commission, a review by the board or a review by the AAT. I commend the Abbott government on this bill and in continuing the important reforms that Labor started in this area.

The government has a fundamental role in maintaining and enhancing the wellbeing, physical, financial and emotional, of veterans and their families. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in my first term, I was involved in the inquiry into the care of ADF personnel wounded and injured on operations. The inquiry was a comprehensive body of work which involved hours and hours of discussions and hearings with people from all over Australia—with families, with veterans, with medical professionals, with public servants and with serving soldiers. Most importantly, we heard evidence of terrible hardship and unhappiness among our service personnel. These are people who have fallen through the gaps, despite the best efforts of the ADF, the DVA and the Department of Defence. Participating in this inquiry had a profound impact on me and I am now acutely aware of the challenges surrounding the treatment of personnel wounded and injured on operations, their repatriation to Australia, their ongoing care, their return to work or their transition out of the Australian Defence Force, and the impact on their families. That is why this legislation we are debating today is so very, very important.

On Friday night, I had the pleasure of attending the first major fundraiser conducted by Soldier On, at the Hyatt Hotel in my electorate. It was just extraordinary. I have had a number of conversations and meetings with Soldier On over the years since its formation, but it is extraordinary to see the transformation of that organisation. The first Soldier On event I went to was the launch event. About two years ago—from memory, it was in the middle of winter—I went to that event, in a tent on the site of what was the old Canberra Services Club in Griffith. Canberrans will remember it was burnt down a few years ago and now it is just a big patch of dirt with an old cannon out the front. It was almost like the phoenix rising because there was this patch of dirt with this tent pitched on it, as I said. It was freezing cold and that was the launch of Soldier On.

When attending this event, I did not know anything about Soldier On; in fact, most of us in the tent did not really know anything about Soldier On. My colleague the member for Lingiari, who was a minister at that stage, was also present, as was, from memory, the former member for Eden-Monaro. We were all standing around saying, 'What does this Soldier On group do?' The group had spoken about the fact that returned soldiers, particularly wounded soldiers, need support. We asked, 'Isn't that support already being provided?' So it was with great interest that we all went to this event. From memory, we also had to pay for our drinks because there was no money around. After that night, I had a very clear understanding about what the organisation was designed to do. It was set up to provide empowerment to those who had returned who were suffering from PTSD and other conditions—those who had been wounded.

In two years, from those very humble beginnings, Soldier On has gone on to become an absolute powerhouse. The Prime Minister has taken part in a number of their bike rides. Their bike ride around France was showcased at the event on Friday night, which was one of the gala events of the Canberra calendar—as I said, from those very humble beginnings to this extraordinary gala event. The CDF was there, the minister was there, the assistant minister was there, there were a number of VCs there, and there were a number of medal winners there. It was quite an extraordinary night.

Again, I take the opportunity to commend Soldier On for the great work they are doing. And the transformation in just two short years has been extraordinary, from having very little money—if no money—to now being very strongly supported by the community right throughout Australia, not just here in Canberra, and not just financially but also through other support services. I take my hat off to the team at Soldier On, because it is quite extraordinary, what they have managed to do. What is most important is the fact that they have provided incredible support to returning soldiers. On the evening, we heard from two soldiers. One of them was actually at my table. His name is Chad, and he talked about the fact that before he got involved in Soldier On—and, from memory, he was in the Army, but he is no longer in the Army—he was quite broken and was in a very fragile state. He started to cycle and then got involved in the Soldier On cycling, and he took part in this tour around France. He said that before and even during the tour of France he had a very bushy beard, which he hid behind. It was a way of covering his identity, because he was in such a fragile and broken state. At the conclusion of that bike ride through mountains and valleys—and it was pretty arduous, from what I could gather—he either went to a barber or did it himself, I am not sure, but he shaved off that beard and revealed his new self, his transformed self, his empowered self. That is what Soldier On did for him; it empowered him and gave him the strength to face life as his former self, as his clean-shaven self, and not to hide behind a beard anymore but to get out there and face the world without this beard, without this disguise, without this front.

So, it was an incredibly powerful speech. I sat next to his wife. They are the proud parents of a beautiful new baby. It was quite extraordinary seeing this man's transformation, thanks to Soldier On. Again, I take my hat off to Soldier On. I thank all the volunteers who worked with Soldier On on that night who made it possible—the hours and hours of work that Soldier On has obviously done for that fundraiser on a shoestring. Again, I commend them for their wonderful work.

On PTSD, I am sure that there were many in this room, as there were many in Canberra, who went to see The Long Way Home, the production by Belvoir. It was late last year, from memory, or early this year. Again, it was a very powerful production that profiled a number of soldiers who had just returned from Afghanistan, men and women. The beauty of the production was the fact that it did not expose us just to the torment that these soldiers were going through but also to the torment and the difficulty that the families go through and that the wives and the girlfriends and the friends go through and experience. I think that is something that Soldier On is very aware of. That is something that I know the Defence department is very aware of, that DVA is very aware of, that the ADF is very aware of—the fact that quite often the warning signs are first read or heard or felt by those families, by the wives, the partners, the husbands of those who have returned.

Those signs can come in many different forms, like someone drinking too much, trying to drug themselves—basically, trying to tune out life through too much alcohol or drugs. Quite often, they can get abusive. Quite often, people just remove themselves from engagement in society, as one of the individuals featured in this production did. It is so important that families act on those warning signs, because quite often the soldiers, sailors, air men and women involved are not capable or willing to acknowledge the difficulty that they are going through. Again, I take my hat off to the families in these difficult circumstances, because they do do it tough.

My father-in-law is a Vietnam vet, and I know that my late mother-in-law went through quite a bit of trauma and hardship when he returned from his tour in Vietnam. She had been left alone with, I think, five kids at that stage. She was left alone with four boys—four Uhlmann boys!—and a daughter, and she did it on her own. She did it tough. She also got a man back from Vietnam who, as she said, was very different to the one who left. She dealt with that in the stoic and strong way that she always did. I know that wives, girlfriends, husbands and boyfriends throughout Australia now face those same circumstances, although from a different war, but in a similarly stoic and strong fashion.

Before I conclude, I want to acknowledge that I attended the annual dinner of the Defence Families of Australia national conference on Thursday night. The Assistant Minister for Defence was also there. The spouses are largely women but there are also a number of men—extraordinary people who move around Australia constantly as a result of postings. They have to pick up and start new lives in different cities every two or three years, and settle the kids, who are quite often traumatised by having to move, into new schools. They are extraordinary women, all of them incredibly strong and articulate. It was incredibly powerful and it was a real privilege to spend the evening with them, hearing about their lives, hearing about their ambitions and hearing about how they want to improve the lot of Defence families—and doing it in a very positive way. They were not there to criticise. They were not there to complain. They were there to come up with solutions to the challenges that they face, from moving from not just Defence housing but also schools to immunisations and a whole range of other issues. Again, I take my hat off to those Defence families, particularly the husbands, the wives, the girlfriends and the boyfriends who are constantly supporting Australia through their support for members of the ADF.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill, which is important within my very large electorate of Durack and throughout our nation, where men and women from communities small, large and far-flung have served the citizens of Australia as well the citizens of the world in operational theatres of war, in peacekeeping missions and in peacetime defence service. Today I acknowledge the 100-year anniversary of World War I, all Australians who served in that war and all other wars, and peacetime defence services.

The legislation before us will benefit members and former members of the Australian Defence Force and relates to transitional permanent impairment compensation. The compensation payable under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is assessed taking account of conditions accepted under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and/or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to ensure that any compensation paid is assessed on a whole-of-person basis. This compensation is referred to as transitional permanent impairment compensation.

The bill will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to retrospectively apply new methodology that will maintain or increase transitional permanent impairment compensation payable to persons with a condition accepted under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and/or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, where permanent impairment compensation resulted from a review by the Veterans' Review Board or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or from consideration by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.

The amendments in this bill are an example of the ongoing fine tuning and continuous improvement that is necessary to ensure that the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act continues to serve the needs of those who serve. Importantly, the amendments will result in beneficial or neutral outcomes only. No person will be disadvantaged by the retrospective application of a new methodology to calculate compensation. Where the application of the new methodology would result in a lower amount of permanent impairment compensation, the existing amount of permanent impairment compensation will continue to apply until a new determination results in a change in the amount of compensation payable.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the RSL in supporting those injured while serving their country. The Returned and Services League of Australia, more commonly known as the RSL, evolved as a direct result of the camaraderie, concern and mateship shown by the diggers for the welfare of their mates during and after the First World War. In June 1916, the Conference of Returned Soldiers Association recommended the formation of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia, and in September 1916 the first RSSILA Congress was formed, with delegates from Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria attending. New South Wales was admitted to the league in 1917, followed by WA in 1918. And 1927 saw the formation of the ACT branch. After several name changes over the years, September 1990 saw the league adopt the name the Returned and Services League of Australia Limited, and the ideals and objectives which categorised the initiation of the first state associations in 1916 were correlated and finally adopted as the aims and objectives of the league.

The RSL has the motto 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance'. It aims to uphold loyalty to the nation and its sovereign and to uphold the Westminster system of government and the Constitution of the nation. The RSL has an expectation that the Australian government will provide compensation, income support, where necessary, medical treatment and rehabilitation to all members and ex-members of the Australian Defence Force whose service has been the cause of disablement. The RSL maintains that income support should be provided on the basis of age to qualified veterans, regardless of disablement. Bearing in mind the nature of military service, the RSL seeks for the government to maintain the present policy of ensuring that veterans' benefits are more generous than those granted to civilian employees. I think that all of us in this House would agree with that.

The RSL and the service women and men of Durack continue to be extremely active and innovative, providing invaluable services to the community. Geraldton, in the seat of Durack, is the largest centre. It is a port city, around 400 kilometres north of Perth. According to a local Geraldton web-based media outlet called Everything Geraldton, a Geraldton ex-servicemen is among the first group of WA military motorcycle riders to complete veterans' welfare counselling training. After completing the course conducted by Legacy and funded by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the counsellors will assist veterans with basic welfare needs.

Greg 'Doc' Smith, a veteran of East Timor in 2001, said that during a casual chat with the Geraldton RSL he discovered that they did not have a welfare officer. He had recently moved from Perth to Geraldton and transferred to the local RSL. He mentioned that he was doing the course and they secured his services straight away. His role is to provide initial support for veterans who need help with welfare issues. That mostly involves putting them in touch with the right service that can assist them, whether it is medical, financial or perhaps emotional.

Those completing the veterans' welfare counselling training are in the community to provide assistance to veterans, which is a big step to ensuring their welfare. The club's new counsellors will be spread around Western Australia, with one in Kununurra in the Kimberley, which is also in the electorate of Durack.

I commend those who have completed and those who are completing the veterans' welfare counselling training. I believe the counselling services provided will be an important tool in the lives of many veterans.

When next in Geraldton, you will be able to visit the 11th Battalion AIF and the recreation of a Gallipoli trench. The 11th Battalion was the first unit in Western Australia to be trained at Helena Vale camp, and, on 25 April 1915, was the first battalion to hit Anzac Cove. The 11th Battalion AIF is a living and commemorative group that is researching and representing Western Australia's first battalion and, as they claim, finest battalion. Quoting from their web site:

The group is also embarking on a major project, recreating a living Gallipoli Trench complete with sound systems, actors and all the paraphernalia of war to make the experience for visitors as real as possible. Planned to be completed in time to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Great War and Australia's almost legendary entry into it on 25th April 1915, the trench will be an authentic replica of a captured Turkish trench as taken by the 11th on the night of 31st July 1915 and named for the commander who led the attack, Capt R. L. Leane.

As described by the group, it was what the Anzacs called a 'please shoot me' stunt:

On the night of 31st July/1st August 1915 200 men of the 11th Battalion waited for a series of explosions from mines laid by the engineers to detonate … before charging over the dark void to engage in brutal hand to hand combat. In a tit for tat engagement of bombs and bayonets, blinded by dust and choked by incendiaries, weary and suffering from dysentery and food shortages, the men of the 11th finally secured the trench, soon christened Leane's Trench after the commander of the attack, Capt R L Leane, and were relieved at 1400hrs by the 12th.

24 hours later the 11th were back in the front line and on 6th August were again engaged in extremely heavy fighting when the Turks launched a counter attack. The 11th held on, suffering 154 casualties in the process. And there they remained in continual battle with a tenacious Turkish army until 16 November 1915 when they disembarked for Mudros, never to return.

Leane's Trench was an obvious choice for recreation. It is intrinsically linked to the 11th Battalion and therefore Western Australia. When completed, it will be 120 metres long and two metres deep, filled with the equipment and the noise of the battle, introducing the visitor to a world that only their grandfathers and great-grandfathers knew.

They are seeking donations and funding to complete this project, and are always looking for volunteers to help to man the trench once it is completed. Well done to members Stuart Adamson, Tim Rust, Chris Cox and the rest of the team for progress so far on this very exciting and worthwhile project.

In closing, and having provided examples to highlight the exemplary qualities of our veterans, I reiterate my support for the bill, which will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to retrospectively apply new methodology that will maintain or increase transitional permanent impairment compensation payable for person with a condition accepted under the Veterans' Entitlements Act or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2014 results form a review initiated by Labor, under former Minister of Veteran's Affairs the Hon. Alan Griffin, to ensure that veterans and ex-service personnel were receiving the appropriate level of support from the Australian government. That review was released in March 2011, and it found improvements could be made to permanent impairment compensation. In summary, a new and fairer methodology for assessing compensation was proposed, and it was put into effect by Labor on 1 July 2013. This particular legislation overcomes a technical barrier detected after 1 July 2013 that has the effect of preventing the retrospective recalculation of transitional permanent impairment compensation, in certain circumstances.

This was indeed a Labor initiative, and of course we therefore support this legislation. It deals effectively with a technical amendment to ensure the intent of the legislation can proceed.

I note that several government MPs have spoken to this bill and have referred to it as though it were an Abbott government initiative. I just want to make it clear that it is not. It arises from the work of the previous government. I also recall the number of government MPs who rushed into the chamber earlier this year to speak about the new indexation for DFRB and DFRDB veterans' payments. I spoke on that bill myself, and I supported it. However, none of the government MPs have said a word about the Abbott government's budget, which was handed down in May, that unfairly targeted veterans by firstly taking away from veterans' pensions the very indexation that members opposite argued for with respect to the DFRB and DFRDB recipients earlier this year; secondly, by leaving veterans on the CPI-indexed pensions when they know, and have argued earlier this year in this place, that by using the CPI-indexed figure those veterans will be worse off; thirdly, the government has also axed the three-month backdating of veterans' disability pensions for new recipients, costing new recipients up to $8,405; and in some cases they have also cut the $870 senior supplement for veterans. In an unbelievably and very miserly move, the Abbott government also wants to cut $217 in annual payments for children of war veterans.

It seems quite a contrast to the stance I see from members opposite when you look at the facts. You look at the cuts being made to the entitlements of veterans, then you hear the rhetoric that comes from members opposite and the rhetoric that even comes from the government itself. With respect to the pension index used, I have been contacted, as I expect other members of this parliament have been, by many veterans who are understandably angry at the inconsistency relating to the indexation methodology used for different payments. One of the people who contacted me was Mr Leon Eddy, president of the TPI Association of South Australia. In a letter sent to me earlier this year, Mr Eddy states: 'There should be one common percentage adjustment rate for all pensions. None is less deserving than the next. The type of pension and base rate of that type is determined by different criteria, but once a type of pension has been determined, it must be adjusted by the same percentage as any other, or it will be eroded away.'

Mr Eddy's letter was supported by a letter I subsequently received in respect of this matter from Mr John Wilson, who I recall was a strong advocate of the DFRDB recipients as well. He wrote to me and met with me during the course of that earlier campaign. He also includes in his letter to me a letter from the Defence Force Welfare Association, and within that letter, signed by Colonel David Jamison, the same arguments are placed. That is, that the indexation that should apply to all pensioners, and certainly to war veterans, is the indexation that was used earlier this year for DFRDB and DFRB recipients. More specifically, it should not simply be the CPI figure that was previously used, and which we all agreed was not a fair reflection of the increases in costs of living that are incurred by people once they are relying on a government payment.

I make that point and I make it very strongly, because had we not changed the indexation methodology earlier this year for one group, then I could understand the consistency that is being applied by the government. But when members opposite and the government came into this place only earlier this year and argued as a matter of principle that a specific methodology should be used then, only a few months down the track, changed that methodology, it just makes those who argued for the change in the first place absolute hypocrites.

There is a second matter I want to refer to in respect of military compensation, and that is the matter of getting accurate and comprehensive war service records from the defence department. In my time in this place, I have been approached by several veterans within my electorate. There is a consistent theme in the matters that they come to me with, and that is that they are unable to get accurate records of their service within the department—be it Navy, Air Force, or Army. As a result of not being able to get the accurate records, they are being denied their rightful entitlements. Sometimes all they are looking for is recognition by way of a medal which they would otherwise be entitled to, if they could prove that they carried out the service for which that medal was issued. But they cannot. I can understand that at times some of the defence activities and military activities of the day may well have been secretive. In one case where the person had a problem getting the information he wanted, this was exactly the case. He believed that it was a secretive operation. Therefore there were no records and he could not prove what he needed to in order to get what he believed he was entitled to.

In my view, that becomes a barrier for many of the veterans. One particular veteran, Noel Muller, who I have met with and spoken with on more than one occasion in my office, has been having a debate with the department for years—in fact, prior to my being elected to this place. He has been trying to secure the proof he needs that he performed the duties that he did, which in turn led to the injury that he has and therefore should entitle him to compensation—which he is not receiving. I have not spoken to Noel now for some time, but the last time I did he was still having this argument with the department. I note that the minister is in the chamber and I bring this case to his attention because I have met with Noel, I have seen the documentation that he has and I have no reason to disbelieve what he tells me. It all stacks up in terms of the material that he is able to present to me, but there are some gaps in the documentation that he has.

The third matter that I want to raise is in respect to this very issue. Earlier this year I met with a veterans' advocate. He himself is a former veteran. He understands the system very, very well. He has become an advocate for his colleagues because he understands the difficulty that they have in navigating the processes that are required of them by the department when they are seeking compensation, or even a medal. He made the point very strongly to me that from his experience, quite often, the staff within the department are themselves not fully conversant with all of the entitlements and how veterans are expected to go about making claims and the like. The departmental officers are not always able to provide the veterans with the kind of information that they need in order to progress their claims or in order to get the full assistance that they are entitled to. Again, I do not single out any particular officer or any particular department, but that is an experience brought to me by a person who seems to be dealing with veterans on a regular basis and who simply asks that maybe there ought to be some effort made to ensure that the staff who are providing veterans with advice are themselves fully briefed and fully conversant with all of the options available to them and the veterans.

I bring these matters to the minister's attention because, as I know he would understand, many of the veterans that we all deal with today are veterans that served in the Vietnam war or subsequent to it, including more recently Afghanistan and Iraq. These are veterans who, as we also all know, quite often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and therefore are not necessarily in the best mental state to manage their own affairs. They rely on advice they get from the department or from the local RSL association that they might be associated with, or they might rely on advice from the type of person whom I referred to earlier: a veteran advocate. These people suffer enough. They should not have to be further disadvantaged because either they are not able to access the records they need or they go to a department that is not as supportive as I believe it can be. If we are going to genuinely support our veterans, those are things that we can do. I can accept that saving money might be one issue, but, if we are going to assist veterans, there are things that could be done better than they are currently being done. I stress to the minister, who is in the chamber, that we ought to look at the package of support required for veterans, not just the dollar amounts, because quite often it is the package—that is, the support that they require—that means more to them.

I conclude where I began. This legislation arises from an initiative of the previous Labor government. Members opposite quite often claim that they are the friends of veterans throughout Australia. I state quite clearly that this legislation arises from Labor and, in my time in this place, Labor has consistently listened to and responded in a fair way to the needs of the veteran community. It will be interesting to see how the minister responds to the matters I have raised, because these are matters that will not go away and, I have no doubt, will be brought to my attention when I return to my electorate. More importantly, regarding the letters from the two defence organisations—from Mr Wilson, which I referred to earlier, and from the South Australian TPI Association—those members are waiting anxiously to see what the response of the government is to their submissions and their inquiries to MPs around Australia.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to sum up the debate before there is a substantive motion to return the bill to the House. I thank all those from both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate and for the warm reception the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2014 has received. The bill will benefit members and former members of the ADF. It will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to retrospectively recalculate certain permanent impairment compensations using a new methodology, thereby removing a technical barrier in the existing legislation. The new methodology resulted from a review of the military compensation arrangements and is to be used where a person has a MRCA injury or disease and an injury or disease already accepted under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the VEA, or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the SRCA.

As the House would appreciate, anything we can do to make life a bit easier for our veterans, particularly those with eligibility under multiple acts, is a positive thing. In the situation where a person has a MRCA injury or disease as well as an injury or disease under another act, the compensation payable under MRCA is assessed, taking account of conditions under the other two acts, the VEA and/or SRCA, to ensure that any compensation paid is assessed on a whole-of-person basis. No person will be disadvantaged by the application of this new methodology. Where the new calculation would result in a lower amount, the person's permanent impairment compensation will be maintained at the existing amount. There is no disadvantage.

The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission began calculations in January of this year, and this is what highlighted the technical barrier in the existing legislation that prevented the retrospective recalculation of transitional permanent impairment compensations in some circumstances. These circumstances are where the person's claim for permanent impairment compensation was a subject of a claimant initiated review by the Military Rehabilitation and Conversation Commission or a review by the Veterans' Review Board or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT. Under the existing legislation, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission has no power to reconsider these decisions. The bill will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to complete these reviews for the benefit of members and former members.

It is a good bill. It is a no-disadvantage bill. It seeks to provide better care for our veterans. In that light, I was surprised, I must say, by the accusation by the member for Batman, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, amongst other things, when he had the temerity, the audacity and the blatant effrontery to say this government has no policy direction in the area of veteran affairs. I may have taken the member for Batman with a modicum of seriousness if indeed the Labor Party had had a veterans policy at the last election, but it did not. So forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I just excuse the comments by the member for Batman as simply vacuous air with no substance. The coalition has a strong veterans policy. It has a strong commitment to our fighting men and women. Our indexation of DFRDB and DFRB superannuants is testimony to that strength of our concern for veterans. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

A message from His Excellency the Governor-General has announced recommending appropriation for the purposes of the bill.

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

If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Question agreed to.