Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate this opportunity to ask the minister about the provisions that he has made for projects of interest in the Defence budget. The one I would like to focus on is the replacement for the Pacific Patrol Boat Program. In particular I would like to highlight Tasmania's credentials in relation to the current program and its replacement. My interest in the program is not only because of the Tasmanian connection but also from my time as a senior military officer and senior public servant in the Department of Defence, where, as First Assistant Secretary, Regional Engagement and First Assistant Secretary, International Policy Division, one of my roles was looking after the Defence Cooperation Program, of which the Pacific patrol boats were a subset.

On reflection I would have to say that by any measure the boats made a very positive contribution to our bilateral and multilateral relations in the Pacific. They were, of course, primarily designed for EEZ protection, but there were certainly some shortcomings related in particular to the detect and queue function of those boats and perhaps even the command and control aspect in how boats in different countries cooperated with each other to respond to those threats, often in the fisheries of those countries across national borders.

But there were also some big positives. I can recall defence attaches sending Pacific patrol boat crews to Launceston to the Australian Maritime College, where they would learn the skills, knowledge and attitudes required to operate those boats effectively. My hope is that the replacement boats will not only add to our regional relationships in the future but also provide opportunities for Tasmanian businesses in the construction stage and also the through-life support of the replacement boats.

Part of that, if I can be parochial for a moment, is redressing what I would consider to be a very low share of the Defence dollar in Tasmania—approximately 0.5 per cent of Defence expenditure when by head of population I think it should be somewhere around two to three. I note, Minister, that on 5 March you announced the government's request for tender for the replacement Australian made boats under the Pacific Maritime Security Program or C3036 phase 1. I have to say that there are quality Tasmanian companies like Crisp Bros Haywards, like Incat and like others which have a proud history of quality engineering and shipbuilding. I think they could make a real contribution to this replacement program. I know there is considerable interest in Tasmanian companies in partnering with some of the lead contractors to get a share of the construction and through-life components of this important project.

I think there are very good reasons to consider Tasmania. Tasmanian industry is highly competent and very capable of building these vessels. I have personally visited both Incat and Crisp Bros Haywards to see some of the spectacular design and engineering work that they have done on major projects right around the world. I think it is also fair to say that Tasmania has a stable, knowledgeable and largely non-unionised workforce that is experienced in ensuring high-quality product is built to schedule, something that you do not necessarily see in shipbuilding right around the country.

It is also fair to say that Tasmania has been heavily involved in the present Pacific Patrol Boat Program through the training and pastoral care of Pacific Island crews at the Australian Maritime College. Minister, I am pleased to report to you that more than 90 Tasmanian companies, mainly small and medium enterprises, have indicated their interest in participating in this project. So, Minister, I am very interested in hearing from you about how the tender for this important project is going, particularly in light of the potential economic benefits it could provide for my home state of Tasmania.

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

I thank the honourable member for Bass for his question. At the outset I acknowledge his long and vast experience in defence, both on the military side and on the corporate or civilian side of defence, and the expertise that he therefore brings to this place in relation to matters of defence.

It is true, as he said, that on 5 March this year I announced that the government would seek tenders for the replacement of the Pacific Patrol boat fleet. This is for the provision of up to 21 steel-hulled vessels which we would provide to Pacific nations in our region. That is worth something like $600 million to industry. When you add to that the personnel and life sustainment costs, that is about another $1.4 billion over 30 years. So this is a fully-funded $2 billion program for our neighbours. To date, all the countries that we have made the offer to, with the exception of Timor-Leste, have taken up and accepted the offer, and that is going to be very significant so far as those countries are concerned.

This program is in addition to what is contained in the current Pacific Patrol Boat Program because we are seeking to not only sustain these boats throughout their life—so that gives a great deal of assurance to the countries concerned that they will not only get the patrol boats but also they will have workable patrol boats for probably the next three decades—but also, as part of this program, to build in an aerial maritime surveillance component to it.

The great advantage for the countries concerned, such as Papua New Guinea, for example, to our immediate north, is that one of the concerns that they have is in relation to their own economic zone and the poaching of fish—for example, from the waters around Papua New Guinea. If you can add to the patrol boats an element of aerial surveillance, that can have a very lasting impact in terms of being able to protect their own waters against poaching. It is for that reason that I think there is a great deal of interest among the Pacific nations for this replacement program to the one that exists at present. This is not just simply providing them with a boat. It is providing them, hopefully, with the means by which they can determine whether or not there is poaching within their areas. That is added to by the fact that that then has a strategic value as well, because if we can join up this maritime aerial surveillance program then it means not just for one nation in particular in the South Pacific but for a number of nations in the South Pacific, whether it is Fiji, Tonga, Papua New Guinea or Timor-Leste, if they come on board—whatever nation takes up this offer—then there is the opportunity to have a surveillance across the area. That will lead, we hope, to greater regional cooperation between the nations in that region. As I said at a South Pacific defence ministers conference in Port Moresby some weeks ago, this is a major contribution both in terms of interest and in terms of practical assistance to nations in the South Pacific towards their defence and their economic wellbeing.

We have brought forward the Pacific Patrol Boat Program as much as possible and a final decision is expected in late 2016, following an expedited but thorough tender process—it is certainly faster than historical standards—as part of our endeavour to rebuild a naval shipbuilding industry in Australia. I will not go into all the detail now, but the reality is that, as there have not been decisions to purchase a naval vessel in Australia for some years now, that has led to a situation where current projects are coming to an end. There is a so-called valley of death as a result of that and, therefore, there are problems there. We want to put in place a continuous naval shipbuilding industry in Australia. This, in many respects, is the first step towards being able to do that.

So far as Tasmania is concerned, I am pleased to hear that shipbuilders in Tasmania, amongst those that the honourable member mentioned, are very interested in this project. These are vessels that could be constructed in many places in Australia. We are not talking about a submarine or an air warfare destroyer; we are talking about more straightforward craft in that regard. I would say to the honourable member that he should encourage his local industries to be part of this tender process because it may well lead to very positive outcomes for Tasmania.

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

There is a consistent thread in the government's approach to ADF personnel issues. I am sad to say that there is evidence of a failure to show regard and respect for ADF personnel—coupled with a chaotic approach into the bargain. Let us examine the history. In October last year, the government put a take-it-or-leave-it proposal to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal for a below-inflation wage deal for the ADF—with cuts in conditions. A 1.5 per cent per annum offer was made when inflation was projected to be two per cent or more—and a mean-spirited removal of conditions was also offered, including the removal of one day of stand-down at the end of the working year, of extra recreation leave and of food allowance for members with dependants.

The government defended this package vehemently—right up to the point where it didn't! It decided it had made a mistake and the Prime Minister announced on 1 December last year that the government would no longer require the cuts in conditions. Then, in March this year, there was another reluctant and grudging reversal, adding an extra 0.5 per cent to the below-inflation deal—but only backdating it to 12 March and not to 6 November last year, which was the first payday of the new agreement. After the government announced that nugatory additional increase, however, everything went quiet. It took nearly four months until the tribunal confirmed it on 9 June. In that confirmation, the tribunal made some pertinent points, saying that the negotiations 'should not serve as a good precedent for future WRAs' and that, in the past, 'WRAs have tended to be at least equivalent to the CPI'. They further said that 'it could not have been a surprise that the below CPI quantum of pay increase in the WRA would be criticised.' Finally, we now hear that backdating will not take place until 30 July, meaning that, from the Prime Minister's reluctant announcement on 4 March, it will have taken more than 21 weeks for the increase to hit ADF pay packets.

In light of this unhappy history, I have the following questions—and this is with regard to the ADF workplace remuneration arrangement for 2014-17. First, will the minister commit to seeking a review of the agreement once the inflation figures for 2015-16 are known and in the event that the CPI increase exceeds two per cent, bearing in mind that the forecast is 2.5 per cent? Second, does the minister agree that the process followed by the government in the establishment of the agreement should not 'serve as a good precedent for future WRAs', as stated in the decision of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—matter 9 of 2014? Third, on 4 March, the Prime Minister said:

In recognition of these unique circumstances, the Government has decided to increase the wage offer for ADF personnel to two per cent per annum, over the life of the agreement, with effect from the next pay day.

Does the minister agree that the Prime Minister said that?

Fourth, does the minister agree that in fact its backdating to 12 March means that the increase per annum is not two per cent but closer to 1.9 per cent—despite the Prime Minister's statement? Fifth, why do ADF personnel have to wait for 21 weeks to receive the additional 0.5 per cent per annum increase announced by the Prime Minister on 4 March? Sixth, does the minister agree that this long wait represents a failure of process on the part of the government?

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

I thank the honourable member for her questions. When I came into this job, I examined this issue and I received advice from quite a number of my colleagues who had been speaking to ADF personnel. I am delighted to acknowledge the members for Bass, Solomon, Ryan and Herbert—who are all here—as being amongst those colleagues who spoke to me on this matter.

The reality was that we increased the offer and made it two per cent. That two per cent is above CPI, and it is above projected CPI. But at the time the Prime Minister and I made the announcement about increasing it from 1.5 per cent to two per cent we said that if that turned out to be below projected CPI in the future then we would look at it again. We want to ensure that our Australian Defence Force personnel are well looked after through their pay and conditions into the future.

The honourable member attacking the government neglected to mention Labor's record in government on Defence. This was a previous government that reduced expenditure on Defence in this country to its lowest level since 1938. Defence spending in this country had not been as low as it was in their last year in government since just before the Second World War, when it fell to 1.56 per cent of GDP. We have promised to increase Defence expenditure in this country once again to two per cent of GDP by 2023-24. That reduction to 1.5 per cent by the previous government included slashing 10.5 per cent from the Defence budget in 2012-13 alone. In fact, the previous government stripped $16 billion out of Defence over the forward estimates. They were $30 billion short of delivering on their two Defence white papers. The reality is that Defence became the personal ATM for the previous Treasurer, Mr Swan. Any time that he wanted to find savings, the first place he went to was Defence. As I said, $16 billion was stripped out of the Defence budget over the forward estimates by the previous government.

I mentioned naval shipbuilding before. In six years, Labor did not commission one single naval vessel from an Australian yard. The so-called valley of death is Labor's valley of death so far as naval shipbuilding is concerned. They broke their promise to grow Defence spending by three per cent to 2017-18. I could go on and on, but I will finish with just one more example of the total neglect of Defence. Under Labor, 119 Defence projects were delayed, 43 projects were degraded and eight projects were cancelled. That is a sorry record.

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

Minister, Solomon has one of the highest Defence populations of any electorate in Australia, as you are very well aware. With four bases within Solomon—the Defence Establishment Berrimah, RAAF Base Darwin, Larrakeyah Barracks, which include HMAS Coonawarra, Robertson Barracks—and 5,000 or so uniformed Defence personnel in the Darwin and Palmerston area, there is a high level of interest in Defence policy in my electorate. It has not escaped the notice of these personnel that the previous Labor-Greens government, under three prime ministerships, cut Defence spending as a proportion of GDP to its lowest level since before World War II.

Minister, the mood is very different now. My constituents both within the Defence community and within the business sector are very happy with the ongoing Defence infrastructure investments in Solomon and, indeed, the Northern Territory. The $18 million in Defence infrastructure projects for the Northern Territory unveiled in the budget, including projects at RAAF Base Tindal, Shoal Bay, RAAF Base Darwin and Robertson Barracks, have been very welcomed by ADF personnel and by the business community in Solomon, which will have the opportunity to participate in the supply and construction of these projects.

Another project which is generating a lot of interest from a Defence perspective is the proposal to create an $18 million joint logistics facility at East Arm Wharf to accommodate the Royal Australian Navy amphibious vessels and the new Canberra class landing helicopter dock ships. I note today there was an expedience motion that was put to the House. We are very pleased about that. It has also been noted within the community that the facility will benefit both Defence and industrial barge operators, to whom the facility will also be available.

Recently, the Northern Territory branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement that Australian servicemen killed in the Vietnam War would be repatriated to Australia should the families wish to do so. Minister, as you are aware, it was a Territorian, Mr Bob Shewring, who was one of the driving forces behind this policy, and he was very pleased with the announcement that the Abbott government made.

The other local link with the Northern Territory was a courageous soldier by the name of Corporal Reg Hillier. Corporal Hillier was working as a jackaroo in the Northern Territory and enlisted to serve his country in 1961. His life working in the outback set him up well for Army life and he excelled in this role. He deployed to Vietnam with the First Battalion and was commended for his outstanding leadership and courage. Corporal Hillier—or Reg, as he is affectionately known in the Territory—punched above his weight in combat. His tracking skills were used to follow and attack small enemy units, and his courage in going into Viet Cong tunnels led to the capture of valuable intelligence. Unfortunately, Reg was killed in action at Vo Dat on 29 November 1965. His family could not afford to have him repatriated to Australia so he was laid to rest in Terendak cemetery. Now, thanks to the recent policy change announced by the Abbott government, Corporal Hillier's remains will be returned home and he will be finally laid to rest in the Northern Territory.

The announcement that ADF pay was being locked in for above-inflation pay increases for the next four years has also been welcomed by my community. Minister, could you update the House on the Abbott government's initiative to repatriate Australian servicemen killed overseas and the ongoing commitment to the welfare of Australian serving defence personnel? Could you also provide an update on the defence infrastructure in Solomon and the Northern Territory?

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

I thank the member for Solomon for her contribution this evening and, more importantly, for her ongoing advocacy for some 5,000 defence personnel who reside in her electorate of Solomon. Of course, as she mentioned, there are a number of very significant military establishments in Solomon and, therefore, interest in defence matters is not just for the ADF personnel themselves but more importantly—or as importantly—for their family members.

She mentioned investment in Solomon. In the 2015-16 budget the government has made significant defence investments in the electorate of Solomon. This includes $4.9 million to resolve flooding issues at RAAF Base Darwin, $5 million to upgrade facilities at the Shoal Bay Receiving Station, and funding for new facilities for the Joint Logistics Unit (North). There will also be $18 million spent on a Joint Logistics facility at Darwin's East Arm Wharf, with construction due to commence this year—so that is going to be a very significant addition to the facilities in Darwin. Darwin, of course, with the Robertson Barracks, the RAAF base, HMAS Coonawarra and other facilities there, is the major defence establishment as far as the north of Australia and that part of the Northern Territory are concerned.

There will also be an investment of about $1.1 million as a program to replace the dated aviation fire trucks with modern equipment. This project is going ahead and will provide facilities at Robertson Barracks to support the introduction of these aviation fire trucks. Overall, increased defence funding is reaching a record of $31.9 billion across the nation this year and a very important component of that is in the Northern Territory.

I am glad the member mentioned the question of the repatriation of remains from overseas, particularly those from the Vietnam War at the Terendak cemetery, because this is a matter I am aware she has passionately pursued with the government for some considerable time. As she said, on 25 May this year the Australian government announced its offer to repatriate the remains of 35 Australian servicemen and dependents from Terendak and return them to Australia. For a matter of record, of the 521 Australian war dead from the Vietnam War, 26 are buried overseas—one at Kranji War Cemetery, Singapore, one in Ireland, in accordance with the wishes of that person's family, and the remaining 24 are interred at Terendak. A further six have had their ashes interred or scattered overseas. The Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia comprises 323 graves of Commonwealth servicemen and their dependents, including 34 Australians, of which 24 are Vietnam War dead, one Malayan Emergency war dead, two servicemen who were killed in accidents and seven service dependents. The repatriation effort at this stage is limited to the Terendak military cemetery and the one grave at the Kranji War Memorial in Singapore.

I think this gives us an opportunity as a nation. The honourable member mentioned that the family of Corporal Hillier were not able to afford to bring his body home. I think this is an opportunity for us as a nation to put this right and bring these men home—obviously, in accordance with the wishes of their family and remaining relatives. It is the one conflict in Australian history where repatriation of fallen service personnel was not consistent. Indeed, looking back, I think we did a pretty poor job as a nation in relation to those people who served us in Vietnam whatever the political differences about that conflict might have been. I think we as a nation have an obligation to our service men and women to treat them with the utmost respect and we fell down in many regards in relation to the Vietnam War.

The Prime Minister made this announcement on 25 May and said that those who died in the Vietnam War would be repatriated with full military honours, and I think that is the deserving thing to do in these cases. Ultimately, the decision whether or not to repatriate the remains of these Australians lies with their individual families, as it should; but, where the families in these situations would wish the remains to be repatriated to Australia, the honourable thing to do on behalf of the nation is to carry out the wishes of the family.

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

Before I ask the minister a question I want to again thank him for those comments that he made about the Vietnam vets. My father-in-law is a Vietnam vet, and I know that it was not just the treatment of those who served in that war when they got back that in a way was a blight on Australian society; it was also the treatment of the families during the war—like my husband when his dad was away—who were often on bases and had women doing it tough on their own. I know my mother-in-law was trying to bring up five kids on her own while Chris's father was deployed. Unfortunately, the treatment of the families as well was equally something that we should not be proud of. It was not just the wives of those men but also the children; they went through some pretty rugged times. I think that as a nation we all have a lot to answer for for that period, so I commend the minister for the comments he just made.

I would like to now turn to paid parental leave. In the 2015-16 budget the government proposed cuts to paid parental leave that will see female ADF personnel lose 18 weeks of paid leave with their newborn baby. It resorted to what I regard as an unworthy campaign of denigration of those who access this scheme—not just the public servants but also the ADF personnel, the AFP members, public servants who access this scheme—as well as a workplace scheme. At one stage the Treasurer agreed to the suggestion that what they were doing amounted to fraud. The government also resorted to semantic gymnastics in trying to deny that there was a consequent loss of conditions.

With regard to the changes in the paid parental scheme I have a number of questions for the minister. First, will the minister confirm that the government, on page 168 of budget paper No. 2, used the expression 'double dipping' in reference to its changes? Second, does the minister agree that this is an emotive and demeaning term? Third, does the minister regard ADF personnel who had accessed both schemes as 'double dippers', as the suggestion was through the insinuation of the response from the Treasurer as fraudsters—and I think the term 'rorters' was also floating around at the time?

Finally, will the minister disassociate himself from the language used in budget paper No. 2? On page 168 of budget paper No. 2 the term 'double-dipping' is used in reference to the changes to the paid parental scheme.

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

Can I say at the outset in relation to paid parental leave that there has been no reduction in the amount of leave available for those ADF members wishing to be at home to care for their infant children. ADF members remain eligible for 26 different types of paid and unpaid leave as part of the ADF's conditions of service, and that includes annual leave, long service leave, extra recreational leave, war service leave, leave without pay, maternity leave and parental leave. Indeed, ADF members are encouraged to take other types of paid leave, along with maternity leave, to extend the time that they can spend caring for their newborn at their full pay. Members who do take other forms of paid leave in addition to maternity leave continue to accrue additional leave credits during this time, including annual and long service leave. Government paid parental leave is a matter for the Department of Social Services, and, whilst I had a little bit to do with that in the past, I encourage any other direct questions to that department and that minister.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as you are aware, my seat of Ryan is home to one of the highest proportions of ADF personnel. I think it is second only to the member for Herbert—always top of the state. Minister, as you are aware, we recently sent a contingent over to the Middle East. I thank you and the Prime Minister for giving your time to farewell the troops, which I know they appreciated. I am also aware that there has been a turnover with one squadron, which has just come back, and another squadron has gone in its place. Minister, it highlights the fact that there are so many of our serving men and women around the world. Many are in dangerous locations, which we hear about on a daily basis. I know that there are also many men and women in other places around the world who do not get such a high profile. Indeed, the member for Solomon today moved a very timely motion about the serving men and women who help with humanitarian and other aid. I was just wondering, without breaching any sort of top secret information, if you would give an overview of where our men and women are serving and the type of work they are undertaking.

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

I thank the honourable member for Ryan for her question. I think the number of defence personnel in her electorate actually exceeds those in the member for Herbert's electorate.

An honourable member: We were talking quality, though. The quality is higher in Townsville!

I believe the quality is equally good in both electorates. I would say the quality in the member for Canberra's electorate would be equally good, because when it comes to defence personnel there is no question of their outstanding quality. Indeed, one of the things I have to say is that, in coming to this portfolio six months ago, what stood out for me personally perhaps more than anything else—and there are many things that one can be impressed about so far as the Australian defence forces are concerned—was that the professionalism of the members of the Australian Defence Force was outstanding. Wherever one goes around Australia, they are highly committed men and women who do a wonderful job for this country, and we should never forget that. As I said, about 7,000 defence personnel are in the member for Ryan's electorate.

There are currently over 2,500 Australian defence personnel serving in operations, including several hundred from the 7th Brigade in the member for Ryan's electorate. As she said, she observed that the Prime Minister and I and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition were there at Enoggera a month or so ago to farewell a deployment going to Iraq. That deployment of some 300 regular forces from Australia was complemented by about 100 to 107 from the New Zealand Defence Force. They are currently at Taji, which is about 25 to 30 kilometres north of Baghdad. Taji is a very large base. It measures about six kilometres by seven kilometres, so we are not just talking about some small area. It is a major defence base and it is playing a major role in the conflict in Iraq, because it is there that the Australians and the New Zealanders are part of a building-capacity partner program. We are training regular forces in the Iraqi army. Ultimately, the defeat of ISIL or Daesh must occur on the ground.

We are making significant contributions in the air. We have six Hornets there at the present time flying out of the UAE. We also have an air refueller, which is flying out of the UAE, and a Wedgetail Eagle, which is a command and control aircraft. That is a very significant contribution, the Hornets having replaced the previous rotation of Super Hornets.

In addition to that, we have about 170 special forces, and related forces, on the ground at the international airport compound at Baghdad. They have been there since about September last year and they have been engaged in the training of the counter-terrorism special forces in Iraq and have been doing a very significant job. The combined contribution in Iraq—through the 300 in Taji, the 170 in Baghdad and the air component—is a very significant contribution so far as the conflict there is concerned.

Operation OKRA in Iraq is not our only commitment to the Middle East. Around 1,000 personnel support operations HIGHROAD in Afghanistan and ACCORDION in the broader Middle East region. Three hundred more personnel are supporting Operation MANITOU, promoting maritime security and stability in the Middle East region, while hundreds more are deployed as part of Operation RESOLUTE to keep our maritime borders secure.

This contribution of some 2½ thousand personnel is a very significant, ongoing contribution. Many Australians would not realise that the contribution in Afghanistan, which went for a decade, was our longest military involvement since the beginning of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. Some 34,000 Australian defence personnel rotated through Afghanistan over that decade-long period, which means that a very significant number of our defence forces actually served in that decade, in Afghanistan, during that period. This is a major contribution that the defence forces are making.

Then on top of that there is the humanitarian and disaster assistance, which we have seen most recently in Vanuatu, where C17s went in, where defence personnel went in, where HMAS Tobruk took supplies up there and where other contributions were made in Vanuatu. With the earthquake in Nepal, a C17 went there taking in supplies and bringing out people from that troubled region. Then closer to home when natural disasters occur in this country, as we have seen in North Queensland, our defence personnel are there as well. This is a magnificent contribution.

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

Coalition governments have got form when it comes to cuts to Public Service jobs. In 1996, we saw 30,000 Public Service jobs cut throughout Australia and 15,000 of them were cut here in Canberra. What did that mean for Canberra? What that meant was that Canberra went into recession. We had people leave town, business bankruptcies went up, non-business bankruptcies went up, local shops closed down, house prices plummeted, our population fell and thousands and thousands of Canberrans lost their jobs.

Fast-forward to the election of the Abbott government and what did we see? Since the Abbott government has been elected, 8½ thousand jobs have been lost in Canberra—6,000 jobs lost in just one year. Coalition governments have got complete disdain and contempt for the Public Service—the servants of democracy—the people who serve this government. They have complete contempt. They have shown it in the past in 1996. We are seeing it again now with the Abbott government—as I said, 8½ thousand lost here in Canberra; 6,000 jobs lost in one year alone.

We saw in the budget that the government had also slated getting rid of 1,150 Public Service jobs. That was on top of the 2,400 that had already been axed from the defence department, despite the fact that the First Principles Review said, 'We recommend that the focus on Public Service reductions as the primary efficiency mechanism for Defence cease.' It also comes on top of comments from the Secretary of Defence, Dennis Richardson, who said at an ASPI dinner in November 2013:

There is a bit of a tendency for some to see Defence civilians as constituting something called a ‘back-end’ supporting the ADF ‘front-end’ … We have an integrated work force where many civilians report to uniformed personnel and many of the latter report to the former.

Also, in 1996, the then Prime Minister said that the coalition government was going to get rid of 2½ thousand public service jobs through natural attrition. As I said, that ended up being 15,000 here in Canberra and 30,000 across the nation.

Given the fact that the government have already axed 8½ thousand jobs here in Canberra, with 6000 in one year, and have slated in the budget 1150 public service jobs, and have already gotten rid of 2400 jobs and, given the importance of the civilian workforce to the ADF's capability, what are the government's plans for the future of the civilian workforce in Defence? I am particularly interested in knowing what further plans it has for job cuts in the public service in Defence.

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

It is a little galling to hear the member for Canberra talking about Defence Force cuts. Let me just read the figures from the last few years. In 2011-12 there were 1000 Defence APS positions cut. In 2012-13 there were 1000 Defence APS positions cut. In 2013-14 there were 800 Defence APS positions cut. That adds up to 2800 Defence APS jobs cut by the Labor Party when in government. That is the record in so far as that is concerned.

We are doing a couple of things. First of all, we are not ripping $16 billion out of the forward estimates in Defence. We have had the First Principles Review, which was headed by David Peever and included amongst its membership former general Peter Leahy, former coalition defence minister Robert Hill, former Labor finance minister Lindsay Tanner and Mr Jim Mcdowell, one of the best known and most expert people involved in the defence industries in Australia and overseas. He is the former head of BAE Systems here in Australia and in Saudi Arabia, as I recall.

That First Principles Review is about ensuring that we have the best corporate structure for the Defence Force on the civilian side in the future. That review reported to the government about three or four months ago. We have put in place an implementation plan, which is being drafted at the present time. That plan is expected to be completed by the end of this month, in just over a week or so. Then, from early July we will be implementing that plan for the structure according to the Peever review.

In addition to that, I have kept in place the review team headed by Mr Peever and I have added one more member to it. That will report to me on a regular basis as to the implementation of the review of Defence. Through that process we hope that we will have a better Defence program in place as far as Defence is concerned into the future.

In addition to that, we are progressing the Defence white paper, which is expected to be published in August of this year. That work has been underway for almost a year now, and I would like to pay tribute publicly to my predecessor, Senator Johnston, for the work that he did both in starting the Defence white paper process and in starting the First Principles Review of Defence.

The Defence white paper will set out a number of things, which will go ultimately to the number of people in the ADF both on the civilian and military sides. It will set out the strategic challenges facing Australia over the next 20 years to the extent that we can envisage what they are. It will put in place a Defence Force structure—what the acquisition purchases we need over the next 20 years are, whether they be submarines, future frigates and assets and equipment we need for the Navy, or the Joint Strike Fighter for the Air Force, so that we have those in place in the future. There will be a defence industry plan as part of this white paper, and it will be very much looking to set up the future of Defence for the next 20 years. Ultimately, we seek to align three things. One is our national aspiration. What do we want to do as far as the defence of this nation is concerned? Is it to send personnel to Iraq or Afghanistan, which I spoke about earlier, or is it to send them on a humanitarian mission to Vanuatu or wherever a natural disaster occurs? That is our national aspiration. That has to be lined up with the capability to deliver on that national aspiration, which goes to the equipment, the assets, that we have to deliver on that. It also goes very much to the training of the personnel involved and that the professionalism that we have in the defence forces continues into the future. It also means the enablers—the communication system, the cyber ability that we have in the future—all have to be there. The third thing that has to align—and this is where Labor fell down in the past—is there has to be the funding to provide for that capability. Those three things, which I call the trinity as far as defence is concerned—

Mrs Prentice interjecting—

I will not go so far as to call it the Holy Trinity, Member for Ryan. That defence trinity—aspiration, aligning with capability, aligning with funding—is what a government has to achieve. That is what we are determined to do. It was a failure in the past under the Labor Party, frankly, because they ripped out money from defence. We have to put it back on track.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from that response to the member for Canberra's question, I note that you, on behalf of the Abbott government, have invested more than $5 billion in the last 12 months on new defence capabilities. This will have a wonderful long-term investment impact on our defence industries, as well as on our defence personnel and capability. I am reminded, as the member for Canberra knows, that on Friday the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade had an inspection tour of Amberley. We attended that facility by flying from here in a Hercules—a bit of low-altitude flying on the way.

We landed at Amberley and had a briefing on some of the new facilities and the new capabilities that are happening there. One of particular interest was the C17. We saw how amazing this aeroplane is, how it can be equipped with operating theatres, how it can carry so many personnel and how it has such a variety of capabilities. Perhaps I can take a moment to acknowledge the squadron leader of the C17, Squadron Leader Samantha Freebairn, who is a role model not only for women in the defence services but for women everywhere. She is quite an outstanding leader in what she does.

Minister, I was wondering if you could detail some of the new capabilities in which you are investing and some of the commitment that you have made to acquiring and also guaranteeing funding, so that we can make sure that we do not get that problem that we had under the previous Labor government.

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

I again thank the member for Ryan for her question and her interest. In 2015-16 the coalition will be investing $7.2 billion in defence equipment. This nearly doubles the amount that Labor spent in their disastrous 2012-13 budget, which, as I said earlier, cut our defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP to the lowest level since 1938.

The honourable member mentions the C17 Globemaster transport aircraft. These are truly phenomenal aircraft. Anybody who has seen one will have seen the sheer size of them. Anybody who has had the privilege of flying in one will understand the capability of these aircraft. I had the privilege of flying in one in January from the UAE to Baghdad, when the Prime Minister and I went to visit the troops in Baghdad. The manoeuvrability of this aircraft, for such a large aircraft, is truly amazing. The storage capacity in the back of it means it can carry very heavy equipment, helicopters, personnel and, as you said, medical stations et cetera. This truly gives us versatility as far as our ability to reach out around the world goes.

There are a number of examples of the aircraft not just going to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. When we had the MH17 disaster in Ukraine, we were able to get the C17 there very quickly. When humanitarian disasters occur in places within our region, the C17 can go to them. It went, as I said earlier, to Nepal. It took relief stores to Nepal and then it was able to evacuate people from that earthquake area zone.

A decision we made recently was to purchase two more of the C17. The reality is that the production of C17s is coming to an end. This was our last opportunity to increase our number of C17s. We decided to purchase two more. That will take our overall fleet of these C17 aircraft to eight. They will have a long lifetime. Probably three or four decades into the future those C17s will still be operating as part of our Defence Force and will still be at that stage, I am sure, some of the most capable aeroplanes in the RAAF. They are based at RAAF Amberley in Queensland. They are the backbone of the various efforts that I have referred to this evening.

In addition to that, we are funding new state-of-the-art special forces vehicles that are being assembled in Australia to give enhanced capability to our most elite troops. We have put out a request for tender for LAND 400, which is the program to provide the new combat reconnaissance vehicles to the Army and replace the ageing fleet of ASLAVs. We have spent $78 million to bring forward the preliminary engineering design work for the future frigate project. We are truly getting on with the job. Of course, we have the competitive evaluation process underway at the present time for the future submarines to replace the Collins class submarines.

Again, decisions should have been made in relation to these in the past. They were not made. That has potentially compromised our Defence capability and therefore our national security in the future. These are long-range projects. The decision taken in the next year or so about frigates and submarines will see the first of those boats delivered in the 2020s. In the case of submarines, it will probably not be until the mid-2020s and so that involved some extension of the life of the Collins class submarines in order to ensure that we have that capability in the future. As I said, the government is getting on with the job. That means ensuring that we have not just the best professional Defence personnel anywhere in the world but also the assets and the capability for them to be able to do their job.

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

Before I ask a question of the minister, I just want to reiterate again the degree of damage that the Abbott government has inflicted on the Public Service since it was elected. As I said, there is form with coalition governments. Thirty thousand Public Service jobs were lost in 1996—15,000 here in Canberra, which had a devastating impact on the Canberra community and the capital region. Since this government has been elected, 17,300 Public Service jobs have been lost, with 8,500 of those here in Canberra.

The Public Service is currently going through the next round of negotiations for its enterprise agreements. As a result of that, there are many, many enterprise agreements that are now very, very overdue. They have expired and there is still no sign of an agreement on the horizon. As a result of that, a number of members of the Public Service are now looking at industrial action in a range of forms right across the spectrum. The CSIRO and government agencies, large and small, right throughout the nation are looking at industrial action as a result of the below-inflation pay offer that has been made by the government to these servants of democracy.

Particularly concerning are the cuts to conditions. Firstly, there is the insult of the below-inflation pay offer and then, secondly, there are the cuts to conditions. The cuts to conditions are of most concern to women. Women comprise a large number of the Public Service workforce and there are a number of conditions that they fought very hard for over a very long time that they are very concerned about, as they are about the below-inflation pay offer. So my attention now turns to the Defence enterprise certified agreement, and my question is: what did Defence originally budget for with the estimated pay rises for DECA after it expired, for example, in the 2012-13 budget? How did this change over time in subsequent budget statements, including MYEFO and later budgets? Were these changes to estimates made in response to or in advance of the release of the bargaining framework? What risk factors were taken into account in these changes being made? For example, what were the ranges of possible increases that were envisaged?

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

I reiterate that under Labor 2800 jobs were lost in Defence alone and, indeed, 14,500 across government all without any plan in place at all. In fact, as I said, Labor cut a thousand APS jobs in the 2011-12 budget, another thousand in the 2012-13 budget and a further 800 in the 2013-14 budget—2800 jobs in Defence. If you look at the ADF permanent head count, it has actually increased by approximately by 1398 positions from approximately 56,273 in September 2013 to 57,671 as of 1 April 2015. As I said earlier, the combination of the First Principles Review and the Defence white paper—particularly the Defence white paper, in which a key component will be the enablers that we need in the future—will be a good news story, because there will be, I think, great opportunities for people with specialist skills to join Defence in the future and add to the professionalism of Defence at the present time. The enterprise bargaining agreement is underway at the present time. I know the secretary of my department is keenly interested in that, and I am sure he will do a very good job so far as that process is concerned.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not able to make the trip to Amberley on Friday because I was in Cairns for the launch of the North Australia white paper—something else that this government is getting on creating and developing. My city of Townsville has not only the finest army base in the country in Lavarack Barracks but also a centrally located air base at Garbutt. In all we have some 6500 members of the ADF in the city. We have a high-skilled ADF, and our soldiers, the sailors of HMAS Canberra and the airmen and women in Townsville rely on quality equipment and support services. The city is always appreciative of the support we receive from the federal government and for our ADF personnel. However—as you said in one of your previous answers, Minister— there must always be that alignment of funding for expectation, so that a level of operational and strategic commitment to the development of those personnel and the equipment they use. I would like to ask you: what is in the Defence budget for Townsville in the next 12 months? Could you particularly touch on the new Chinook helicopters? What operational spending and infrastructure will be needed to support those?

Minister, I have also been contacted by a constituent of mine, Tim McHugh, about cattle having grazing access to the training grounds on High Range outside Townsville on the old Dotswood Station. Because we have spoken about it and because you have spoken about the drought throughout Queensland and New South Wales quite often, I know that you are keenly aware of the drought we have. How can I progress this discussion? Could you give me pointers on where to go? I know that you have been to Townsville recently, and I would like to extend the invitation to a fair dinkum inspection of facilities in Townsville. I know that the men and women of Lavarack and Ross Island RAAF Base would love to see you in our city to have a really good look at how very good we are at this.

My city is not just a brilliant defence base—Townsville is home to over 5,500 Defence Force veterans. Because so many ADF personnel retire directly into our community, the average age of my veterans is younger than most veteran communities. Many of these men and women do not avail themselves of the full value of the exit processes laid out by DVA. How is DVA working to assist veterans, no matter their age, when they do come to them for help? How can we ensure that every ADF member gets the option to access DVA when they separate from the service of the nation? These men and women bring a work ethic and a sense of community to my city. They are great citizens. We have, however, been a major contributor of personnel to Australia's longest action, the Afghanistan war. While those carrying physical injuries from wounds are easy to spot, it is the invisible wounds of PTSD which are of major concern to my community. Can you please tell my constituents and my veteran population how DVA and the wider defence community are helping our veterans cope with mental issues so that they can fully participate in my community?

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

I thank the member for Herbert for his contribution this evening and also for his marvellous advocacy for and representation of particularly the 6,500 Defence Force personnel and their families in his electorate. I was in Townsville, as he recalls, in May this year with the member for Herbert to commission the first of the new fleet of CH47F Chinook helicopters that will be based at RAAF Base Townsville. We are also providing new and upgraded facilities to support the introduction and sustainment of the new Chinooks in Townsville. In 2015-16 this will include a $13.7 million investment as part of the $49.8 million redevelopment project. We will also be investing $23.9 million in 2015-16 to provide enhanced logistics facilities at Lavarack Barracks. There will be a further investment to replace dated aviation firetrucks with modern equipment.

Secondly, the honourable member asked me about the situation with drought conditions in his region. Drought has a devastating impact on many communities around Australia. As someone who grew up on a farm, I appreciate the impact that drought can have not just on the farmers and their families but on surrounding communities. I understand the position that many Queensland graziers find themselves in at the present time, particularly with limited feed to support their livestock. The member for Herbert, as he intimated, has been a strong advocate for allowing livestock to graze on Defence land. I commend him for his work to support local farming communities in this regard. I can confirm to him and to the chamber that Defence has been consulting with the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to find out exactly how Defence land may best be used for agistment in these circumstances. Defence has no objection in principle to supporting local communities and farmers who are struggling through this drought, but obviously we need to work through the various safety, legal, environmental and operational concerns that will arise.

To my knowledge Defence has not received at this stage any applications for agistment, so I suggest to the honourable member for Herbert that the best thing for Mr McHugh to do would be to write to both his office and mine with any specific requests and I will be sure that his correspondence is in the proper hands in Defence and that we can give it proper consideration as soon as possible. As I said, we would like to assist wherever we can in recognition of the devastating conditions affecting farmers in parts of Australia, including in the honourable member's electorate.

I turn to the issue of DVA clients. I note there are some 5,500 Department of Veterans' Affairs clients in the electorate of Herbert, and that is understandable given that Townsville is essentially what the Americans would call a garrison town—and a very important one for Australia.

There have been a wide range of programs and initiatives developed to support ADF personnel, including raising awareness and increasing acceptance of mental health challenges. Defence is constantly working to improve services in this area. The honourable member talked about what happens to the connection with DVA when a member leaves Defence. I can report to him that I have been having discussions with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to try and ensure that we have a better joined-up system when a person leaves Defence, so that there is that contact and pathway to any services that they might require from DVA, rather than just leaving it to chance or leaving it to time to pass or somebody to get around to it. I think we can do a better job in that regard, and, as I said, I have been speaking with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in that regard. DVA spends about $179 million a year on dedicated mental health services for the veterans and their families. They are currently working on a very significant longitudinal health study, the Transitional and Wellbeing Research Program, which is a $5 million project. Mental health is a real issue, particularly for former Defence personnel, and we need to do whatever we can to assist them in that regard.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we have seen time and time again, this is a government which has an apparently inexhaustible appetite for military commemorations and parades, and an apparently unquenchable appetite for its enthusiasm to be seen around and with soldiers. Indeed, we have seen them eager to militarise those civilian and constabulary operations wherever they can, but we have also seen that underneath this veneer of publicity seeking and style management, there have been some very egregious assaults on the rights of veterans affairs pensioners. While the government does routinely proffer to the Australian community rhetoric around recognising the uniqueness of military service and the lasting honour that should be bestowed on our veterans community, deeds have sadly not followed those words. This has been brought into stark relief by this government's attack on pensions. You will remember that in the lead up to the last election, the government did two things of significance: the first was to make a very great virtue of their commitment to indexing DFRB and DFDB pensions. As they travelled the countryside promoting the indexation arrangements that they intended to bring to those two pensions, they treated veterans groups and ex-service organisations across the country too long, lucid lectures about the virtues of triple indexation. And yet, when they came to government, all of that rhetoric was abandoned. While the DFRDB pension did have its indexation improved—I might say with both sides of the parliament supporting it—we saw on the other hand veterans affairs pensions suffer the most remarkable attack—an attack that, of course, flew in the face, not only of their rhetoric, but explicit promises made in office. You will remember that on 6 September 2013, on the eve of the previous federal election, Tony Abbott told SBS News there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no changes to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. With this commitment ringing in their ears, it is no surprise that veterans were astonished to discover, in 2014, that their pensions were indeed targeted by this government, and the triple indexation that was proposed would be abolished. There were of course other atrocities as part of this which included the abolition of the MSBS pension scheme, the attack on ADF pay, but in particular we saw some 280,000 veterans—the recipients of some 310,000 payments—all proposed to have their payments stripped, all proposed to have their pensions declined against the real cost of living.

Successfully, Labor, together with ex-service organisations—the RSL and many others—were able to campaign for this position to be retreated from. But, alas, the government's resolve in attacking pensions of our veterans has not reduced. They may have found new tactics, but their mission has not changed. In particular, last week I received a letter from the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia stating their concern that over 12,000 veterans will be affected by the government's continuing attack on pensions. The government's legislation will cause the part-service pensions of more than 10,000 veterans to be reduced and some 2,800 to be cancelled. The VVFA themselves have said:

For those veterans whose Part Service Pension is calculated by the ‘assets test’, the news may be bad.

Veterans have served our country, and they have defended our nation, yet they continue to endure these attacks from a government that wants to be photographed with them but not take proper care of them. Why, Minister, is the Abbott government so keen to attack our veterans—the people who have sacrificed themselves and so much to serve our country?

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

I thank the honourable member for Batman for his question and say to him that the government is committed to ensuring that the unique nature of military service underpins our actions for veterans and their families. Indeed, the budget provides $12.1 billion in services and support to veterans and their families, including $6.5 billion for income support and compensation pensions, $5.5 billion in healthcare treatment for veterans and their families and $88.7 million for commemorations and war graves.

I was a little bemused, I suppose, by the honourable member's comments about parades and welcomes home. I thought that was something that enjoyed bipartisan support in this place. I was with the honourable member for Ryan at the farewell to the troops at Enoggera who are now serving this country and the interests of this country and indeed the broader Western alliance, if I can put it in those terms, in Iraq at the present time. I was there at the parade that was held in Melbourne, as parades were held all around the country, for those who served us over a decade in Afghanistan. It is entirely appropriate that we as a nation recognise in a bipartisan way—because people from both sides of politics attend these events—the contribution our defence forces have made on behalf of us, the people of Australia.

Indeed, spending per veteran—to come back to the point—is the highest it has ever been. Indeed, in 2015-16 we will spend an average of $40,650 per DVA client, up 1.8 per cent on last year. This contrasts with a decline in spending per veteran of around three per cent in the last Labor budget. This year's budget maintains indexation for pensions paid by DVA at CPI, MTAWE and the BPLCI; provides $10 million to increase the number of case coordinators, which will improve the level of support to veterans with complex and mental health needs; invests a further $3.7 million to extend a trial of in-home telemonitoring; invests $700,000 to improve the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme; streamlines the appeals process under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—exactly what veterans have asked us to do; improves compensation available for Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act clients, including excising DVA clients into their own Defence-specific compensation act; and provides additional financial support for the Centenary of Anzac, particularly our centenary of service, which includes the Second World War, Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam. This government is committed to veterans. And, as I have indicated in that very brief summary, there is an indication of the real measures we have taken to assist veterans.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I do have a question, but I just want to give some context to the question before I get to it. I am sure you are very aware that for the Centenary of Anzac many grants were given out in honour of the centenary, obviously all related to World War I—memorials, honour rolls, cenotaphs and what have you. I would just like to go through a number of them that happened in my electorate in the context of the question that I want to ask. The first is one that it was wonderful to be involved with. As part of the grant process we gave $10,000 to the sub-branch of the Grafton RSL, which organised a re-enactment of the Light Horse recruitment.

It went for two days. A lot of young men who lived on farms rode their horses into Grafton from the surrounding areas and signed up. With this re-enactment everyone went to Copmanhurst, which is 20-odd kays out of Grafton, on the night of 23 April. There was a night at the Rest Point Family Hotel, where everyone assembled. The next morning there was a sign-up where you registered which I was involved with. Then they all rode off to Grafton that day. It took six to seven hours. On the morning of Anzac Day, in a very moving ceremony, they all rode into Grafton as part of the Anzac Day memorial. It was just wonderful to see these 150 people on their horses ride in with this re-enactment.

That is one that I wanted to share with you There were others that I would like to share with you as well. There were lots of replacements of honour rolls. One that was particularly moving to me was at Bonalbo. There was the replacement of the World War I honour roll at the Ballina RSL, and that was valued at about $7,000. Another one I thought you might be interested in was in Ballina, where there is going to be a tree planting. It is going to be called Walers Way to commemorate the Walers. Obviously, we all know—well, some of us might not know—160,000 horses went from Australia to World War I. Of those 160,000 horses, one returned. That is an amazing statistic in itself. They played an enormously important role in the World War I war effort as well. There are going to be a whole lot of trees planted in Ballina and called Walers Way to commemorate that. Of the 160,000 Walers, many were involved in the Battle of Beersheba in the 4th and 12th regiments to take the town's water wells, which were desperately needed in the desert. As I said, only one returned.

There were two others that I would like to share with you. One was in the Mid Richmond Historical Society in Coraki. There was a very moving honour roll there. It was a piece of teak which had been carved with all the names of people from World War I who enlisted in the Richmond Valley and did not return. It was carved with a knife by the mother of one of those men. They had the knife she did it with. Teak, as you would know, is a very hard wood, and the care, patience and devotion she had to do that in memory of her son was very moving.

The last one I wanted to share with you, Minister, is in Lismore. We put a glass enclosure around the Lismore memorial baths. You could not actually see the honour roll in winter because it was shut off by these wooden doors, so we enclosed it in a glass casing. It was quite moving to my wife and me because my wife's great-great-uncle Alfred Webber is listed on that honour roll from World War I.

In the context of that, Minister, my question is: Anzac Day in my community gives people the opportunity to remember, reflect and commemorate the service and sacrifice of Australians who have served their nation. What plans does the government have to continue commemoration of the Centenary of Anzac and Anzac Day in the future as well as the centenary of service, which underpins the government's program?

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

I thank the member for page for his contribution to this discussion this evening and acknowledge his exceptional advocacy for the constituents of his electorate of Page, not the least of which are members and former members of the Defence Forces in his area. There were some 27 local community organisations across his electorate which shared in $124,833 in funding under the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program, and he detailed some of those. I think the amazing thing is that, wherever you go in this country, whether it is a large city or a small town or village—a hamlet in some cases—there is a cenotaph or an honour roll there and you can read the names of, in many cases, dozens of locals from small areas who went off to fight, particularly in the First World War, and the many who, tragically, did not return from that conflict.

Across Australia this program has supported more than 1,750 applications seeking up to $18.7 million in funding, which delivered on the government's election commitment to place community based commemoration at the heart of the Centenary of Anzac. In the most recent budget, the one we are discussing tonight, the government has continued its investment in the Centenary of Anzac to ensure that the centenary of service—the century of service—by our personnel in the defence forces is properly recognised and honoured.

An additional $35.5 million will be allocated for the Australian government's Centenary of Anzac program for the upcoming 2015-16 budget as planning for commemorative events marking the 100th anniversary of major battles gets underway on the Western Front. Of course, the focus of the centenary celebrations this year was, as it should be, at Gallipoli, but that was a relatively short period of campaign—some seven or eight months at Gallipoli. Then many of the troops, as the honourable member indicated, went back to Egypt and then to the Middle East at the great Battle of Beersheba—which he talked about in his contribution—and then of course for some three years or so on the Western Front.

Indeed, 295,000 Australians served with distinction on the Western Front. Of the more than 62,000 Australians killed in the First World War, 75 per cent were killed on the Western Front. The additional funding will provide for commemorative events at Lone Pine, in Turkey; Fromelles, Pozieres and Le Hamel, in France; Polygon Wood, in Belgium and, of course, Beersheba in Israel. I am sure that there will be many Australians who want to be at those events.

I had the great privilege on Anzac Day of being at the dawn service at Villers–Bretonneux and then the town service in Villers–Bretonneux followed by three services in or near Bullecourt and then later on the Last Post ceremony at Menin Gate at Ieper. Of course, great battles occurred across the Western Front, which will be commemorated in the coming events.

There were some 7,000 people at Villers–Bretonneux at dawn in very cold, wet conditions. At Bullecourt there were about 2½ thousand people, mostly Australians. Bullecourt, for those who do not know, is more or less in the middle of nowhere in northern France on the Western Front, yet so many hundreds if not thousands of Australians made their way to those commemorative services, and I suspect in the coming years tens of thousands of Australians will attend these commemorative services.

There is also an opportunity to partner with ex-service organisations to mark anniversaries such as the fall of Singapore and Australian sacrifice at Hellfire Pass and, of course, the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan during the Vietnam War. So it is not just the First World War that we are commemorating over the coming years. It is also significant battles and wars which occurred since then, notably the Second World War and of course the Vietnam War.

As I said, next year significantly marks the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has announced that, subject to the agreement of the Vietnamese government, a small mission party of veterans will be supported to return to Vietnam in August 2016 to mark the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. There will also be a major commemorative event here in Canberra at the Vietnam Forces National Memorial on Anzac Parade to honour all Australia's Vietnam veterans. As I said earlier, the veterans of that war were, unfortunately, neglected by the country, and it is appropriate that we put things right in this 50th anniversary year of the Battle of Long Tan.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I want to now turn to dental and allied health provider fees. You will recall, of course, that in the 2014-15 budget the Abbott government announced that they were deferring the indexation of Department of Veterans' Affairs dental and allied health provider fees to 1 July 2016. This was estimated to produce savings of some $35.7 million over four years. Budget papers stated that the savings from this measure would be invested by the government in the Medical Research Future Fund.

In the 2015-16 budget, the government extended the pause on indexation of the Department of Veterans' Affairs dental and allied health provider payments until 1 July 2018, for a total of some four years. This extension of indexation is estimated to produce $69.6 million in savings. While the government has retained the savings measure and indeed extended it and deepened it, unlike the initial 2014 budget measure budget papers now state that savings will go to fund other veterans' policy priorities rather than the Medical Research Future Fund.

The 2015 budget also reveals that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will undertake a review of dental and allied health services arrangements specific to the veterans community to complement the broader review of the Medicare Benefits Schedule to be conducted by the Department of Health. Dental and allied health provider fees are those rebates that are provided by the government to individual providers for the services they provide to the veterans community. Dental and healthcare provider organisations have expressed concern in ever more phrenetic terms that this extended pause on indexation will make it increasingly difficult for them to provide services to the veterans community. This is particularly the case, given that there already exists a disparity between the rebates and the mean customary fees, and it is illegal for providers to charge veterans a co-payment. Data accumulated by the Australian Dental Association has found that there has been an increase in the difference between the ADA mean fees and the DVA rebate from some six per cent in 2006 to 25 per cent in 2014. The Australian Dental Association is very concerned about the impact that the continuing freeze on the indexation of DVA fees will have on the ability of our veterans to access dental payments.

While dentists remain exceedingly loyal to our veterans and, indeed, to their customers, measures such as these are nonetheless likely to impact upon veterans' dental health. It is a fantasy for this government to continue to march around assuring veterans' organisations that it is service providers who have copped a hit, not them, while they undermine the businesses and the business cases of those who provide services to veterans. There will inevitably be a tipping point. While I accept that, as with policies such as direct action on climate change, this is a government that does not believe in market forces. Nonetheless, market forces do continue to exist and, as you pile pressure on service providers, you inevitably pile pressure on veterans. Why is the government still making harsh cuts to the veterans community? Why are you attacking them through the back door? Do you accept that the continuing freeze on indexation of these payments will inevitably affect services to veterans?

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

In relation to the matters raised by the honourable member for Batman, can I stress that these measures do not affect how veterans access DVA funded health care. There will be no additional charges to veterans by providers, and I stress there will be no erosion of existing entitlements for veterans under this measure. Indeed, as he pointed out himself, the Department of Veterans' Affairs will undertake a review of dental and allied health services arrangements specific to the veteran community to complement the broader review of the Medicare Benefits Schedule to be conducted by the Department of Health. Indeed, the savings from this measure he referred to will be redirected by the government to fund other veterans policy measures.

As I said, spending per veteran is the highest it has ever been. In 2015-16 we will spend an average of $40,650 per DVA client—up 1.8 per cent on last year, which contrasts with a decline in spending per veteran of around three per cent in the last Labor budget. These measures include maintenance of indexation for pensioners paid by DVA; the provision of $10 million to increase the number of case coordinators, which will improve the level of support to veterans with complex and mental health problems; investing a further $3.7 million to extend the trial of in-home telemonitoring; investing $700,000 to improve the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme; streamlining the appeals process under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, exactly what veterans have been asking for; improving compensation available for Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act clients, including excising DVA clients into their own Defence-specific compensation act. As I said in relation to the observations from the member for Page, additional financial support for the Centenary of Anzac and the very important commemorations which will occur in coming years.

As I said, the measures do not affect how veterans access DVA funded health care. There are no additional charges to veterans by providers and no erosion of existing entitlements for veterans under this measure. So this is all very positive news as far as the veterans community in Australia is concerned. The government will continue to work closely, and my colleague and friend, Senator Ronaldson, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, will continue to work very closely with the veterans community as he has done so in the past. I am quite confident that that very fine, supportive and warm relationship between the minister, the department and the veterans community will continue into the future. This government is proud of the Australian Defence Force personnel and their contribution to Australia. We will continue to support them, not just when they are in the services but also in when they leave the services and become veterans in the future.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

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