Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. As it's in continuation, and as a reminder to honourable members, this bill goes to the consolidation under the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs of all current veterans, which makes a lot of sense.

Veterans should not be confronted with a bureaucratic maze when attempting to seek assistance. It's hard enough when you're suffering from anxiety, depression or some ailment stemming from your service to our country without unnecessary and confusing red tape becoming an obstacle to getting the support that you need. We should attempt in every possible way to minimise the amount of red tape and obstructions that prevent veterans from seeking the help that they need.

Pensions, compensation, rehabilitation, treatment and other benefits for veterans, members of the Defence Force and their families are currently provided under three separate acts: the VEA; the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the MRCA; and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the SRCA. This bill will remove the applicability of the SRCA and create the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016, the DRCA, which will only cover Defence Force members and their families. The implementation of this proposed DRCA will provide for a complete separation of the legislative framework for Defence related claims from the Comcare scheme under the SRCA and will provide the Minister for Veterans' Affairs with the responsibility for all three separate compensation acts which cover veterans and Defence.

Veterans, former ADF personnel and their families have unique needs that would be better served by a dedicated minister. The last time that I spoke, in the last sittings, we all encouraged the minister to rededicate himself to the service of our people through the better running of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and better consultation with the ex-services community. Rather than having the different acts under different ministers, all pieces of legislation will now be under the one minister, as I mentioned. This makes a lot of sense.

However, I do note that this bill attracted some scrutiny from the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and want to briefly comment on some of that scrutiny. That committee noted that there was a perception that there is an adversarial relationship between DVA and veterans groups and veterans advocates. I know this myself from speaking with colleagues about their experiences with the department, but I must stress: there are excellent people working in the department; it's just that the processes in the department—and perhaps some of the culture in the department—need review.

A mate that I served with who has gone through this process has just received confirmation of the claim process after three years. During those three years, he was going through an incredibly difficult time personally in terms of not only his mental health but his identity, coming out of his career in Defence and losing a bit of purpose. At the same time, he was coming up against the obstacles in this claim process. I've held forums in my electorate where I have had feedback from veterans and ex-service people along the same lines. So it is concerning, but it is also consistent with feedback we've got from around the country.

I hope that DVA can pursue a more mutually accommodating relationship with its stakeholders. We all hope for that. Another main theme that the committee noted was that there was a need for improvements in those DVA consultation processes. While we on this side of the House acknowledge that DVA itself has undertaken to review its own processes, we encourage it to complete this as soon as possible to ensure that effective consultation with all relevant stakeholders is able to occur. As everyone knows, generally speaking mutually beneficial outcomes occur for not only DVA clients and the future clients but also the stakeholders involved when all sides are consulted. This simply makes sense. It's the best way to get great outcomes for those who have served our country.

We have so many organisations across the country. I think a review was recently done that said that there were around 3,000 ex-service type organisations in Australia. So the process of consultation with those groups is more important than ever. When I reflect on the situation for ex-service people and veterans in my own electorate, we have thousands of ex-service people, whether they served overseas on active service or not, living in our community. Some of those members were injured or are suffering from events that may have occurred when they were in uniform, whether it be in Australia during training or whether it be when overseas. Those service people, those fine Australians, need more support. It's proper that the veterans' affairs minister is now responsible for all of them and that's what this bill is all about.

Currently, in my electorate we're recruiting for a level 3 advocate. For those who are not aware, an advocate is someone who works with the ex-Defence member who has served us. The advocate helps them through the process of getting some assistance in a claims process through Veterans' Affairs, but can also help in many other ways in an individual's transition from the military to civilian life, as it's called when you're inside the military. That role is yet to be filled. Without turning my contribution into an ad, I want to put it out there nationally that Darwin is looking for a level 3 advocate to work with our service men and women who are seeking assistance to make claims through the department.

Most jurisdictions, most capital cities, all over Australia have these level 3 advocates. At level 3 they have the desired amount of experience with the acts, including the one that we're discussing today, to help the ex-service member through the claims process to get the desired outcomes. Anyone interested in applying for that role can look at seek.com.au. That advocate position will also coordinate the services of the level 1 and level 2 advocates as well.

These are volunteers working in our community. All members of this place will know how vital those volunteers are, but they need to be coordinated. Case management is important, because you can't let anyone fall through the cracks. With successive advocates that we've had, our experience has been that you've got a volunteer person, who may already be working through their own issues to do with their own service, and then, on top of that, they take on this huge weight of responsibility to help Australians facing anxieties and difficult challenges—be they physical ill health or mental ill health—through that process whilst also dealing with their own stuff and doing the best they can to case manage that claims process through the DVA. As I said, the staff of the DVA do the best possible job they can, but we really need that level 3 advocate in the Top End.

There are a number of organisations in my electorate, and I want to acknowledge a couple of them for their fine work. The Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia NT branch will soon do something that hasn't happened anywhere in Australia, and that is change their name. There'll be a vote to change their name to Veterans Australia NT. They are considering dropping 'Vietnam' out of their name because they want to make sure that young veterans feel like they can come to Veterans Australia NT and have a home where they belong. I think the Vietnam veterans are right in thinking that having their name as the Vietnams Veterans Association of Australia NT meant that younger veterans who may have served in places like Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Timor-Leste maybe didn't think that that group was for them. I can assure those ex-service people in the Territory that, even though the name change won't be voted on for a couple of weeks, they are welcome in that organisation, and I know the executive committee want to reach out in every possible way. I want to acknowledge Bob Shewring, who is the president of that organisation, for his leadership on the issue and also the vice-president, Ray Palmer, who lost his son fighting for our country in Afghanistan.

We have RSLs in Palmerston and Darwin. Those RSLs are working to coordinate more with the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia in order to make sure that ex-serving people in our electorate don't fall through the gaps, and I congratulate them for the work that they're doing.

Next week we hope to have one of our Korean veterans come down to Canberra for the opening of the Peacekeeping Memorial on Anzac Parade. We are hoping that we can get Jack Myatt, who served with the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, peacekeeping along the DMZ on the border between North Korea and South Korea in that transition period post hostilities, to come down and be awarded by the South Korean government the peace medal that they have struck to acknowledge those members of the forces from Commonwealth and other countries who were committed to securing the demilitarised zone from any further aggression at the cessation of hostilities in the 1950s when there were continuing border infringements. It's great to talk with Jack about that time, and it's very apt not only that he will be acknowledged by the South Korean government but also that he will there for the unveiling of the Peacekeeping Memorial on Anzac Parade.

So many Australian men and women have served our country in peacekeeping roles—including, in my own family, two of my brothers. In peacekeeping roles, as in more full armed conflict, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years, our members can see and be a part of very difficult and challenging circumstances. They have very difficult experiences, see people killed and see things that are very confronting. We want to make sure that all of those people—like everyone who represents our country overseas—who are affected by their service have the best level of service possible through the department, and it's great all that legislation will be under the Minister for Veterans' Affairs from here on in.

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's appropriate that I call to the attention of the House the service of the member for Solomon. He served this country with distinction. The one person's service that he left out in his speech was his own service. I'd also like to comment on the fact that, over many years in legal practice, it was an honour and a privilege for me to represent the veterans community. Many years ago, I took on a practice of acting in Administrative Appeals Tribunal matters with veterans' affairs matters, with a cohort of veterans that were the leftovers from the Second World War—in particular, the prisoners of war. If you act for any group of veterans and if you're acting for the prisoners of war, and you get to experience the privations that those ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen suffered, you really need to understand the place that our veterans should hold in our hearts and minds.

Having said that, I rise today to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. This bill enacts the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 as a military-specific statute, directed towards the payment of compensation for injuries arising out of or in the course of employment in the Defence Force between 1 December 1988 and 1 July 2004. As it currently stands, Defence Force members and their dependants are covered under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the SRCA, which applies to all Commonwealth employees. The bill currently before the House will create two separate acts—the SRCA, which will apply to Commonwealth employees, and the DRCA, which will only apply to members of the Defence Force and their dependants. This is a good thing. Removing the Defence Force section from the SRCA and creating its own act will place all current veterans legislation under the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. This is a much more suitable arrangement than we currently have, with the Minister for Employment responsible for all employees covered by the SRCA, including defence personnel.

The implementation of the proposed DRCA will provide for a complete separation of the legislative framework for defence-related claims from the Comcare scheme under the SRCA and will provide the Minister for Veterans' Affairs with the responsibility for all three of the compensation acts that cover veterans and Defence Force members. Further, the DRCA will provide defence members with access to military-specific compensation and rehabilitation schemes and will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, the MRCC, to bring the newly enacted DRCA into closer alignment with the MRCA.

Recently, I co-hosted a veterans forum with the member for Kingston in her role as the shadow minister for veterans' affairs. Hearing firsthand of the experiences with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and struggles with obtaining suitable compensation for defence personnel and veterans from the Launceston community highlighted for me personally—and amplified my experience of—the importance of giving particular attention to the veterans community.

This approach has been recommended as a consequence of reviews into the operation of the legislation which presently applies to members and ex-members of the Australian Defence Force. It goes without saying that, irrespective of the views of experts who have reviewed those schemes—including the Tanzer and Campbell reviews, which I'll refer to later in this address—there is a sense of abiding frustration within the veterans community, associated with that legislation. It is legislation which has previously sought to cover Defence Force personnel and veterans which may have different operations depending upon the person's service and, in particular, their dates of service.

I recently had the opportunity to speak in connection with the visit of the last Korean veterans to Korea. At that time, I reflected upon our obligation—that is, our community's obligation, our collective obligation—to veterans of our armed services. I suggested at that time that more needs to be done to address the unique requirements of the veterans community and, in particular, the pain and sacrifice reflected in the suicide rate of our veteran community, which I will refer to later in this speech.

Pension and compensation entitlements for ex-servicemen and ex-service women are complex. Again, based upon my experience, these provisions are unnecessarily complex. There are multiple considerations which may impact upon the course of a claim to compensation and/or pension, including interaction with a number of pieces of legislation, some of which are not Defence-specific. There is no doubt in my mind that our veterans deserve to have compensation schemes for personal injuries and workers compensation with respect to injuries in the workplace which are Defence-specific. Currently, a member of the Defence Force may be required to engage with the SRCA, the legislation which administers the Comcare scheme, but the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the MRCA, may also apply. This legislation applies to members of the permanent forces; members of the reserve forces; cadets and officers, including instructors of cadets; persons who hold honorary rank or appointment in the ADF; and certain other classes of persons who are connected with Defence services—all with respect to service on or after 1 July 2004.

The MRCA is designed to cover the whole spectrum of military service. However, there are inconsistencies between the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Comcare legislation and the MRCA. There are different benefits available to claimants—in the main due to the history of each of the acts—different rates of payment, different circumstances which give rise to an entitlement, and numerous other very frustrating inconsistencies. For example, it remains incredibly frustrating for advocates, and no doubt claimants, that a member or veteran must satisfy for the purposes of one piece of legislation the necessary preconditions to receive the payment of a benefit, but that evidence or, more properly, that determination made by the ADF is not necessarily capable of being relied upon in a claim under one of the other pieces of beneficial legislation.

Unfortunately, that frustration is not addressed by this legislation and it is unlikely to be addressed in the near term. But, in a practical sense, the likelihood that a former member might be required to navigate multiple pieces of legislation in order to advance the claim for compensation is reduced by this legislation, given that this legislation proposes to clone the provisions of the Comcare legislation so as to establish a separate Defence compensation system.

The reference to cloning of the Comcare legislation is entirely appropriate. This legislation is intended to re-enact the SRCA in order to create the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988. I'm indebted to the Parliamentary Library for bringing to my attention comments as to the unique nature of military service comprised within the Tanzer review, which was the review of the military compensation scheme of March 1999. That review said:

The role of the ADF [Australian Defence Force] is to protect Australia and its interests. To meet this role, the ADF is required to maintain an operationally capable force, which displays a high level of fitness, commitment, efficiency and discipline among its members. To achieve this, certain inherent requirements apply to those personnel serving in the ADF. These requirements will, to varying degrees, impact on the lifestyle of each ADF member. Such conditions are ... specific to military life and would not normally apply to the majority of those in civilian employment.

The difficulty that many face in returning to civilian life is illustrated by a disturbing set of statistics. Mental health issues within our veteran population are a growing concern to me, as I stated in a speech earlier this year. Whilst we lost 41 soldiers on active duty between 2001 and 2014, we lost 291 veterans to suicide in the same time period. I note with cautious approval the recent announcement by the minister that certain conditions—in particular, mental health conditions—will be accepted and eligible for treatment irrespective of the length of service and any issue of causation. This is a very good start and I want to see how this will work in practice.

Since Australia's involvement in the First World War, there have been successive programs to provide compensation and support to veterans and their dependents. I digress slightly at this stage to refer to a delightful piece of historic research recently provided to me, which concerns Defence housing constructed in the David Street and Mary Street area of East Launceston following the First World War. Whilst obviously not concerning military compensation, I'll use this example to illustrate that the obligations created by service—and the expectations of the public, and service personnel—extended to the creation of compensation, housing, and pension schemes with varying degrees of success and regrettably, it seems, failure. The book Home From War by local historian Kim Simpson details stories from the Newstead War Services Homes, a project set up by the federal government in 1918 to provide homes for returned service personnel. The government at the time wanted to assist returning service personnel return as best as they could to a relatively normal life, despite the toll that going to war for their country had taken upon them. All returning service personnel who returned from overseas service were entitled to apply to the scheme. This was extended to war widows and to service personnel returning with mental health issues. The book goes on to explain that, unfortunately, in the period of the 1920s and going up to the Great Depression, most of those service personnel in fact lost their houses because they were unable to keep up even with the payment of the rates to the municipal corporation. It is sad to see that the best intentions to provide housing for veterans were unable to be followed through.

In 2009, the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs announced a review of military compensation arrangements, which was conducted by a steering committee chaired by Mr Ian Campbell PSM. This review, the Campbell review, focused on the operation of the MRCA. Nevertheless, the review called for—amongst other things—a review of the legislative schemes that govern military compensation for service before 1 July 2004, and the identification of any anomalies that existed. The Campbell review was strongly in favour of a military-specific compensation scheme, in line with the recognition that military service is different from civilian employment. This, of course, is not the first attempt to differentiate between service personnel and Defence members of Comcare.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015 was introduced into the House on 25 March 2015. That bill sought to make significant changes to the Comcare scheme by amending the SRCA to make the scheme sustainable over time. The effect of this would have been to reduce the types of injuries that were compensable, reducing the cost of the scheme, and creating a regime to suspend and/or cancel payments to injured employees. It is very important to note that the bill was intended to operate so that the amendments made by the other schedules to the bill, with some exceptions, would not apply to Defence-related claims. The bill lapsed when the parliament was prorogued on 15 April 2016.

This bill makes good the government's promise to carve out the workers compensation entitlements of Defence Force members from the SRCA. Due to a number of concerns within the veterans community, the present bill was sent to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. This was supported by Labor. A number of concerns were raised before the committee in relation to the consultation process undertaken by the department. This is something that Labor takes very seriously. One of the issues which appears to arise with respect to the consultative process is the extent to which ex-service organisations have the resources to assess legislative proposals and provide informed feedback. The committee also highlighted a perception that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has an adversarial relationship with some veterans' advocates, veterans advocacy groups, and lawyers acting on behalf of veterans. The committee stated that, in their view, DVA should be seeking out and actively engaging with those persons who are best informed and capable of providing analysis of proposed legislation.

There were also a number of detailed concerns raised with respect to the drafting of legislation. This is due in part to the fact that the SRCA is a comprehensive act which has been amended by 68 different acts. Some of these acts included application, transitional and savings provisions which will continue to be applicable for the purposes of the DRCA. Due to this complexity, a so-called Henry VIII clause has been incorporated to provide for a remedy for any adverse unforeseen consequences which might arise from the unique manner in which the present legislation was enacted.

The Australian Government Solicitor has recommended that the regulations to modify the operation of the DRCA could only be made under the clause if the minister certified to the Governor-General that he or she is satisfied that such modification is necessary or desirable to ensure a re-enactment of the DRCA does not place any person other than the government at a disadvantage. The regulations would be introduced as disallowable instruments, which would be subject to the usual parliamentary processes. Labor senators provided additional comments which proposed amending this clause to place an obligation on the minister to conduct consultation with relevant ex-service organisations and the veterans community, and released the full text of the proposed regulations publicly. This is important to ensure that the veterans community would be consulted on regulatory changes. In summary, this legislation is a positive development. It is important that we introduce Defence-specific legislation. Labor supports this legislation. I commend the legislation to the House.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak today in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. This bill, as many have explained before, will create the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act, the DRCA; and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the SRCA. The DRCA will apply only to Defence Force members and their families, while the SRCA will continue to apply to other Commonwealth employees.

Let's look for a moment at what this change means for those who are affected by it. In effect, this bill will place all current veterans legislation with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and this makes sense. Defence Force members' needs are already covered by two acts, the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. However, Defence Force members, for the purposes of compensation, rehabilitation and treatment, are broadly dealt with by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act when their matter occurred prior to 1 July 2004. This SRCA provides compensation, rehab. and treatment to a range of Commonwealth employees.

Our Defence Force members serve the country in roles that are unlike any others held by most, if not all, Commonwealth employees. As was stated in the Tanzer review of 1999, when referring to the requirements placed on Defence Force personnel in order for them to do their job:

Such conditions are generally specific to military life and would not normally apply to the majority of those in civilian employment.

Therefore, a targeted approach to those members' needs, especially in the sensitive area of compensation, rehabilitation and treatment, is a positive move. The DRCA will continue to confer the same rights on Defence Force members that are currently provided for under the SRCA, but the DRCA will be enacted as a military-specific statute and will not be subject to any further amendments to the SRCA should they occur. The DRCA will apply in relation to an injury, disease, death, loss or damage that related to certain employment in the Defence Force that occurred before the commencement of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act on 1 July 2004. The DRCA's enactment will allow the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to bring the DRCA into closer alignment with the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act as part of future amendments.

This bill seeks to remove all Defence Force specific legislation and all reference to Defence Force members from the SRCA in creating this DRCA. Defence-related claims will no longer be dealt with under the Comcare scheme, as is the case at the moment. By removing all Defence Force specific legislation from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will be provided with responsibility for all three compensation acts covering veterans and Defence Force members.

As I've previously mentioned in this chamber—quite often—my electorate is home to the largest naval base in the Royal Australian Navy. HMAS Stirling, located on Garden Island, just off the coast of Rockingham in the electorate of Brand, is the workplace of more than 2,300 service personnel and hundreds of civilians working in Defence roles. The base plays a critical role in the defence of Australia, hosting multiple Defence assets, including Anzac class frigates, the Collins class submarines and more than 70 other naval units. But HMAS Stirling is more than a military asset; it's an integral part of the community and, in turn, serving Defence members, former members and their families are all supported by this community.

Throughout our community, across the suburbs of Rockingham and Kwinana, there are RSL clubs, social clubs, sports clubs and family assistance groups that all support and engage current and former Defence members and their families. On this past Anzac Day, I had the absolute pleasure in attending the unveiling of a 5.5 metre replica two-man Chariot human torpedo submarine on the very day when we commemorate all those service women and men who have served our country. This World War II replica submarine has been built to scale, weighing almost a tonne. This labour of love took Laurie Drage and his son Cory six months to construct from recycled scrap metal in Laurie's Kalgoorlie workshop. Laurie Drage, a Vietnam veteran from Port Kennedy in my electorate, donated the submarine replica to the Totally and Partially Disabled Veterans of WA club in Baldivis in gratitude for the support the organisation gives to veterans and to him personally. The club's enthusiasm and commitment to this project, its defence comrades and the wider community is to be commended. The support and help the club gives to veterans is to be commended as well.

Defence families make their homes in our local suburbs. Their children attend our local schools. These schools hold Anzac Day ceremonies, with defence members attending and participating on the day. I was lucky enough to attend services at Baldivis Primary School, Gilmore College and Comet Bay High School this year, and other services in and around Kwinana and Rockingham. The pride in the community for our past and present servicewomen and servicemen, our neighbours and colleagues, is always palpable. Schools across the electorate support defence children through the Defence School Transition Aide Program, helping kids settle into school and supporting them when their parents are deployed all around this country. Defence partners and spouses also work in local businesses, as do members when they leave the service.

Recently, I attended HMAS Stirling to welcome home the HMAS Arunta as she and her crew returned from a successful nine-month deployment to the Middle East to undertake Operation Manitou—part of Australia's contribution to the NATO-led Operation Resolute Support to ensure Afghanistan grows and prospers peacefully into the future. HMAS Arunta was very successful. The crew can be very proud of their work intercepting illicit drugs, trade and goods that would have been otherwise destined to provide financial support for terrorist and extremist activities in the Middle East. On a wet weather Sunday in July, the crew was welcomed by their friends and family and the top brass of the Royal Australian Navy. Days such as these are filled with joy and joyous tears as people are reunited with their loved ones after a lengthy separation. On these days, we see the best of our armed services and their friends and families.

On these happy days of reunification when the Navy band plays, the service wraps everything up in a sense of belonging to a shared mission in the service of the nation. But this can't happen every day. Sometimes, the return to home life is difficult. It is even more so when a sailor, a soldier, an airwoman or an airman returns home after their last day in the Australian Defence Force. The days, months and years after discharge from the services can be very challenging. Building a new life and career post-service can be difficult for many veterans and ex-service personnel. We haven't been the best at helping those who have served with a difficult transition into civilian life. We need to do better at this. We must do more to help veterans, ex-service personnel and their families. We need to ensure the families of veterans are supported as they support the veteran in their lives.

Most veterans and service members transition very successfully into civilian life and continue to serve the community and contribute for many years in many capacities. Their defence experience is invaluable and it is valued by the community. But this is not necessarily the case for all. For those veterans who do find the transition to civilian life difficult, we need to ensure that these veterans receive the support they need. There are many elements to transitioning to civilian life—secure housing, social support, health and fulfilling employment. These pieces all need to fit together to solve the puzzle of a successful transition to civilian life. We must do our utmost to help our veterans with these challenges.

We have to acknowledge also that many veterans have taken their own lives upon leaving the service of this nation. As a community, we need to ensure that this stops and that we do all that we can to ensure that veterans don't reach that most grim of conclusion that ending it is the only way through. We know veterans are at a higher risk of suicide compared to the Australian community, especially among men aged 18 to 24. The recently tabled Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel received an overwhelming amount of evidence. The inquiry helped to shine a light on the issues of suicide and mental illness in this very important community. I thank the senators involved for all their work looking into this most grave of issues, but I particularly would like to thank all the veterans, former service personnel, veterans organisations and families who contributed to this important inquiry.

Labor has recognised the gaps in support available to veterans and former service personnel and is committed to developing a family engagement and support strategy for defence personnel and veterans to provide greater support to our military families.

Most people across the electorate of Brand, across Rockingham and Kwinana, know someone who has served in the Australian Defence Force or who is a veteran of armed conflict, and many of them themselves are current ADF personnel, former service personnel or veterans who have witnessed things most of us never will and never want to. To these people in my electorate: I want to let you know that I am committed to helping the Labor Defence team develop and implement the family engagement and support strategy for defence personnel so that, when you need support and help, it will be there for you and for your family. It is the least we can do for those who serve this nation.

As I was reflecting earlier, we have many community organisations which support serving and former defence personnel in this electorate. As the community does, it makes sense that we, in this place, best support defence personnel in this case by delivering legislation that best protects and assists their needs.

I will look again briefly at what this bill aims to achieve. The proposed DRCA will provide a complete separation of the legislative framework for Defence-related claims from the nonmilitary Comcare scheme. It will provide the Minister for Veterans' Affairs with the responsibility for all three of the separate compensation acts, which cover veterans and Defence Force members. It means the DRCA will apply in instances where injury, disease, death, loss or damage that relates to certain employment positions in the ADF occurred before the commencement of the MRCA.

The new bill will more closely align with the MRCA by providing defence personnel with access to military-specific compensation and rehab. schemes as part of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and place all current veterans acts with the minister. Whilst this is welcome news to my constituents in Brand who are affected by these changes, there are a number of concerns with the bill in relation to the areas of consultation that need to be considered. These concerns were voiced at the recent Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into suicides by vets and ex-service personnel as I mentioned earlier. Concerns were raised with the committee about the Department of Veterans Affairs consultation and engagement practices regarding proposed legislative changes.

The committee's final report looked at the difficulty ex-service organisations faced in assessing legislative proposals—a problem due at least in part to limited resources. This lack of resources hindered ex-service organisations in both assessing legislative proposals and providing their informed feedback on these proposals. The committee considered these issues as impacting on the relationship between the organisations and the DVA, and considered the department as best placed to improve these relationships. Unfortunately, it's led to a perception of an adversarial relationship between DVA and some veteran stakeholder groups. Therefore it was recommended that the Department of Veterans' Affairs review its consultation and engagement practices so it can receive informed critical feedback on proposed legislative amendments, rapidly respond to concerns raised in the veteran community and increase the understanding of proposed legislative changes in that community.

I believe this is the best way in which to deal with these matters of sensitivity and importance, which can impact on so many people's lives, especially in my electorate of Brand. It is pleasing, especially when dealing with legislation that can affect the Defence community, to see that some concerns that key elements of the SRCA that were absent from the DRCA have been resolved. The committee raised concerns, and the department responded, resolving the majority of issues.

Because there are no practical changes to the DSCA, no veteran or ADF member will be financially worse off due to the creation of this bill. The reason for creating it is to enact a bill, which is Defence-specific, which applies only to Defence members and their dependents. As I have said before, it makes sense to place veterans legislation with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It makes sense that the minister is responsible for matters concerning veterans, especially in the sensitive area of compensation, rehabilitation and treatment.

Military service places unique demands on members' lives—demands which can be difficult for civilians to understand or appreciate. These demands were highlighted in the report into suicide and self-harm prevention services available to current and former serving ADF members and their families. It also highlighted the fact that veterans and ex-service personnel are more likely to be affected by suicide than other members of the community, especially younger men.

This review encouraged continuous improvement to services and systems that support current and former service men and women. There are lessons that can be applied outside of this particular review's parameters. I am confident that this bill, in creating the SRCA and the DRCA, is going towards improving the processes and systems that apply to Defence Force members. I would like again to mention the work of the Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and their very important inquiry into suicide in the military and among veterans and ex-service personnel. I also acknowledge the Department of Veterans' Affairs for their very hard work on this legislation. I note the cooperation involved by all to achieve the best outcome for those affected by this bill.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Brand. Serving veterans as well as past veterans is an important element of her electorate. She has shown a commitment over a long period of time to their welfare and the welfare of their families, and I thought her contribution was right on the money.

I also noted the contribution of the member for Solomon, who, as a veteran himself, has a unique perspective for this parliament. There are only a small number of current parliamentarians who have served in uniform for this country, and each of them, in their own way, brings different and important insights into service—what service means and how veterans react as a result of their service. It is very important that we acknowledge their contributions most particularly.

I want to talk about the comments made by the member for Solomon, particularly around the changing nature in the Northern Territory of the ex-service community, and the work of Bob Shewring and Ray Palmer. There is no doubt that they have moved significantly towards addressing the needs of current serving veterans and recent veterans—that is, people who have separated from the Defence Force over recent years. That is very important. And of course Ray brings a unique insight as the father of a young man who was killed in action.

I come from Alice Springs, and one of the tragedies that's happened in Alice Springs in recent months has been the effective demise, at least in the short term, of the RSL in our town, largely not because of anything that happened in our RSL itself but because of the relationship it had with the South Australian RSL and the South Australian RSL's own administrative difficulties. Thankfully, while the RSL club is closed, the RSL services will continue. The club is, I'm told, forming a relationship with the Alice Springs Golf Club. That of itself is important, but what is most important is that its services and its advocacy for former defence personnel and current serving veterans be available to anyone who requires them, and that will continue.

As a former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I strongly support the intent of this legislation. I believe that it is important for rationalising the way in which we provide support for our veterans in the serving community. I am indebted, as always, to the Parliamentary Library for their Bills Digest. On the issue about which we're speaking, I want to reinforce, most particularly, why it is important that we treat our veterans community and our serving personnel appropriately. They are not like any other Australians. They are unique. The Bills Digest reminds us of the words of a review of the Military Compensation Scheme that was conducted in March 1999 by Noel Tanzer. It is known as the Tanzer review. In it, these comments were made—and I quote from the Bills Digest:

The role of the ADF [Australian Defence Force] is to protect Australia and its interests. To meet this role, the ADF is required to maintain an operationally capable force, which displays a high level of fitness, commitment, efficiency and discipline among its members. To achieve this, certain inherent requirements apply to those personnel serving in the ADF. These requirements will, to varying degrees, impact on the lifestyle of each ADF member. Such conditions are generally specific to military life and would not normally apply to the majority of those in civilian employment.

That is really true. It is a very apt description of the men and women in uniform who serve this country as members of the Australian Defence Force.

We need to understand that, when someone puts on that uniform, they are effectively saying that they're prepared to die for their country. They are required to act under instruction and order and do things that most other Australians would never be required to do. When we see the unique nature of military service, we ought to acknowledge and make sure that, in providing for our veterans—both serving and those who are no longer in the Defence Force—their needs are being properly met. I think this piece of legislation is significant in that regard.

As the Bills Digest reminds us, since the First World War, successive Australian governments have had a high priority to 'provide compensation and related support to veterans and their dependants'. As highlighted by this document:

Compensation for members of the Australian Defence Force who suffer injury or disease has been the subject of numerous changes since that time.

As a result, members are covered by a number of different pieces of legislation: the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, SRCA, which we've heard about; the Veterans Entitlements Act, which applies to service before 1 July 2004; and the Military, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, or MRCA, which works for those who served on or after 1 July 2004.

The MRCA was the first piece of legislation designed to cover the whole spectrum of military service, but, as you can imagine, given the time between these various pieces of legislation, there are inconsistencies between the VEA, the SRCA and the MRCA. They provide for different benefits, significantly because of their own histories. They have different rates of payment and give different circumstances which give rise to entitlement. That's something which is particularly untenable, really. We need to make sure there's a uniform way of dealing with our veteran community.

When Alan Griffin was the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, he commissioned the then secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Ian Campbell—as part of a steering committee chaired by Ian Campbell—to do a review of the military compensation arrangements. While the terms of reference focused on the operation of MRCA, the Campbell view was strongly in favour of a military-specific compensation scheme that recognises that military service is different from civilian employment—and it is, and we should all acknowledge that fact.

I know, from my own experience, that it is very different. We only need to talk to members of the veterans community, whether they're older members who survived the Second World War or the Korean War or the Vietnam War, or whether they are more recent veterans who had experience in Africa, Somalia, the Middle East, Afghanistan or Timor-Leste. We know that their experiences have, in many cases, given them either injuries or illnesses that will last for the rest of their lives. That has an impact not only on them but, of course, on their families, most significantly. We need to make sure that we're doing everything we possibly can to properly address their needs and their requirements.

I note that the member for Brand talked about the Senate inquiry into the suicide issue. What that Senate inquiry made very clear is that this is really a young person's thing—the majority of these suicides happen to young serving members, or ex-serving members, who are young men, primarily; they're not even in their mid-20s. We send people to do things and, when they do those things, they experience situations which none of us who haven't been there could even contemplate. Not only are they putting their lives on the line; they are also, potentially, suffering the impacts of observing incidents, which will have a lasting effect. One of the issues which arises out of that is that, too often, younger veterans, when they separate from the Defence Force, lose contact with their comrades and have no affiliation with the RSL or any other Defence organisation, and, as a result, they often get lost. When it's time for them to be treated because an injury, which they received during their service, has become apparent and is affecting the way they live or when they develop mental health issues as a result of their service, sometimes they are very alone. It's these young people that we've got to be most concerned about because, as that committee report tells us, they are the ones who have suffered the most.

I am pleased to be able to support this legislation. Others have gone through the intricacies of it, and I don't intend to do that, other than to say that this bill makes good the government's promise—and I commend the government for doing this—to carve out the workers compensation entitlements of Defence Force members from SRCA. It will effectively quarantine Defence Force members from the effects of any future amendments of the SRC Act, and, most particularly and importantly, it will place all current veterans acts with the civil minister, in this case the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, which is as it should be.

It's important that we see the current minister as also responsible for defence personnel issues, as I was when I was a minister, so he gets a good look across both the Defence department—current serving men and women in uniform—and veterans—those who are current serving veterans or people who have separated from the Defence Force—and is able to bring those two departmental agencies a lot closer and, hopefully, get a lot more clarity and understanding for veterans and veterans organisations. I do think this is an important piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

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

Being a part of the Australian Defence Force, protecting our nation, protecting our national interests, is one of the great sacrifices made by so many Australians—150,000 Australians each year. I have said many, many times in this chamber that there is no higher calling than military service. To be a fine member of the Australian Defence Force member, you need to display a high level of fitness, commitment, discipline, trust, integrity, courage and loyalty.

Comments made in the Tanzer review of March 1999 still apply today in much the same way that they did at the turn of the millennium. As the Tanzer review said:

To achieve this, certain inherent requirements apply to those personnel serving in the ADF. These requirements will, to varying degrees, impact on the lifestyle of each ADF member. Such conditions are generally specific to military life and would not normally apply to the majority of those in civilian employment.

That's why when members transition out of uniform we need to provide them with the adequate resources and the adequate support to successfully help them make that transition into civilian life and we need to make sure that the processes are as seamless as possible.

The processes in terms of the transition from the military into DVA have been the subject of countless inquiries, and even now I still get complaints that they are not as seamless as they can be. We need to ensure that members going from the ADF do not go into a huge abyss when they enter civilian life and that their transition into civilian life is as smooth as possible not just in terms of the DVA processes but also in terms of educational processes and emotional support processes—and financial support goes without saying. When transitioning, one minute you are in the ADF and you've got a house provided for you on a base and the next minute you're off base and you're looking for a rental somewhere—and quite often it's the case that it has been a long time since you've actually been in the private rental market. We need to provide these support services and these systems to our ADF members who are making that transition to civilian life.

We also need to provide the appropriate support systems and services to those who've been damaged in serving our country—those who have experienced trauma in serving our nation, those who have come back with PTSD from Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere and those who've come back from peacekeeping missions who have undergone significant trauma. We need to provide the appropriate support services and systems to ensure that those people are supported. We need to ensure that those people who have made that significant contribution to our nation are supported in their hour of need. It's vitally important.

That is why it was terrific to attend, for the fourth time, the Soldier On fundraiser that was held just recently here in Canberra. It was the national fundraiser. As I said, I've been to all four of them over the years. I remember when Soldier On started. I think it was back in 2012. It started with just a glimmer of an idea from John Bale and some of his mates in respect for some of the mates that they'd lost in Afghanistan. They started with no money; just a big idea, big dreams, and the absolute determination to support veterans, or ADF members, coming back from serving their nation overseas, who had experienced significant trauma and were doing it tough as a result of PTSD and the trauma of what they'd witnessed overseas on deployments. They were determined to come up with a mechanism to support those people. This vision—this glimmer of an idea, this glimmer of a vision—began in a tent that was pitched at the site where the returned services club had once stood down in Griffith. It was there that this vision, this grand idea, of Soldier On was born. It was over a few glasses of cheap wine. Were you there, Deputy Speaker Irons? From memory, it was pretty cold.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a cheap wine kind of guy.

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

We were in that tent, and we all contributed as far as possible to getting that dream up and running. The member for Lingiari was there and, from memory, the member from Eden-Monaro was there as well. We had no idea what sort of an event we were going to. We just got an invitation for an event run by Soldier On. No-one knew what Soldier On was about. No-one knew what the mission was or why they felt the need to create Soldier On.

From those very humble beginnings, from those little seeds, big trees grow. We are talking about only five or six years. Soldier On has grown from a tent on a lot of land in Griffith to being not an empire but a very well-respected service that provides a range of facilities and support mechanisms to ADF members who have come back and are going through tough times. They now have a fantastic facility, which is the old CSIRO facility, over at Crace. There they offer financial counselling and workplace transition. They do a lot of therapy work through physical exercise, craft, art and painting. They have education programs and music programs. The beauty of that facility is that it's large—it has a historic connection with Canberra as well—and that provides them with an opportunity to have those diverse learning experiences, support experiences, counselling experiences and psychological support experiences. It's all at that place in Crace, which is terrific.

This fundraiser, as always, was well attended by Canberrans. Again I thank Canberra for supporting Soldier On. You've been with Soldier On from its very humble beginnings. You've always been out in full force to support the national fundraising efforts by Soldier On. They're always wonderful nights. We always hear from very powerful speakers. At the evening there were a series of speakers talking about their transition from trauma to being well, their journey from trauma to now being healthy. We had the opportunity to hear from a number of speakers on that front. It was a really worthwhile event, and I hope it raised lots of money for Soldier On because it does provide great services.

I am pre-empting a bit of what Soldier On is going to be announcing. I got only a little taste of it. I hope I'm not letting the cat out of the bag too early, but I understand that Soldier On this month is going to be making an announcement about incorporating first responders—a number of paramedics and others—into the significant safety net, the parachute, that is offered by Soldier On in terms of its services. Unfortunately, I won't be able to get to that event, because we're sitting, but I wish Soldier On all the best. I think it's terrific that it is expanding those services to not just deal with ADF members but also first responders, because we all know that those first responders quite often do experience significant trauma and there are just not the support systems that are there currently for ADF members.

While I am speaking of veterans and those who have served their country and have suffered trauma and been physically or emotionally damaged in the process, I want to mention that I also had the great pleasure just last week of taking part in Legacy fundraising efforts. Legacy, as we know, supports the families and children of ADF members who either were very badly injured or, unfortunately, died in their service for our country. Again there was a terrific response from Canberra. I again thank Canberra for buying teddy bears, pens, bracelets and pins or just making donations to Legacy.

Legacy provide services for I think about 70,000 families throughout Australia. They provide a terrific service and they've been providing that since World War I. Essentially, the concept of Legacy was born at the hideous battle at Pozieres, where we lost thousands and thousands and thousands of Australians in one day, amongst the rain, mud and constant bombardment, when a dying digger turned to his mate and said, 'Look after the missus and the kids when you get home,' Every 20 seconds, artillery was firing over. It would have sent anyone mad. It was a hideous, hideous day in Australian history. Thousands and thousands of young men from all over our country were killed that day in those dreadful circumstances. For those who weren't killed, anyone would have gone mad in that process. As I said, artillery bombs were dropping every 20 seconds. It would drive anyone mad. It was a very dark day in our history—Pozieres. Even though there is a memorial on the windmill site, I do think that there's more that we can do to honour those who died in Pozieres and those who survived. How anyone could survive that hideous battle, I don't know. But I think that there is more that we need to be doing to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice at Pozieres. As I said, the memorial on the windmill is modest. It is beautiful in its modesty, but I do think that there's more that we need to be doing on Pozieres—the recognition of that. I note that we've got Polygon Wood commemorations coming up shortly. It was equally tragic.

Just going back to Legacy, I had the great privilege of attending Legacy's national launch. At that launch, there were a number of Junior Legatees who played a number of roles in the event. One of them was a Junior Legatee named Mark MacInnes. His speech was really powerful. I want to read it into the Hansard. It was very personal. It was very powerful in that it was so personal. It was also very raw. It was very brave and courageous of this young man to share his journey with Legacy. In fact, he was originally sceptical of Legacy and, as he said, it caught him 'mid-fall'. In his speech he said, 'Legacy caught me mid-fall' when he was highly sceptical of it. I would like to read briefly some of the contribution that Mark MacInnes, a Junior Legatee, made to the national launch here in Canberra a week ago. He said:

I was thirteen when my father, Andrew, a dedicated ADF member passed away suddenly, my sister Kate, was only a month past the age of twelve. That day, my mother lost a husband, and both of her kids lost a figure of guidance, support, and most of all, unconditional love. It was as if a once blue sky became black, dark and full of those storm clouds that unnerve you even before the lightning comes crashing down. Although the path of loss is something all of us will have to tread, it's always difficult. For myself, I felt as though nobody I had closest to me would understand how I feel, I felt isolated, unable to turn anywhere. My school friends hadn't had this happen to them, my teachers could say all the pleasantries they liked, to me, it wouldn't help … I would have been about 16 to 17 when my sister and I first properly immersed ourselves in the Legacy community, throwing away youthful bravado and pride to finally see why this organisation thought us to be worthy of their support.

How gorgeous is that—'thought us to be worthy of their support'?

I'm not someone who likes to admit they are wrong, to those who know me the best, I'm way too stubborn to willingly do it, but with Legacy, I'll happily swallow that pride I keep and happily accept that I was foolish.

This was in terms of turning Legacy away.

You see, Legacy, once upon a time to me, was just the occasional Christmas voucher …

But, now, Mark MacInnes, as a Junior Legatee, saw Legacy as, basically, catching him mid-fall. It protected him, it nurtured him and it provided him with emotional and financial support.

I commend Legacy for the work that they do in supporting our widowers and the children of ADF members who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

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

I'm pleased to follow the member for Canberra in speaking on this legislation, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. I speak in support of this legislation and welcome the creation of a department that will be focused on Defence Force safety and rehabilitation. Over the years, there have been too many events where defence personnel were poorly supported or even ignored after they suffered health problems that arose from their defence service of this country. Even worse, critical service records have often disappeared or been made difficult to retrieve for injured veterans who needed the records to prove their case and prove their injury.

The recent legislation relating to the British atomic testing that was debated in this House only a few weeks ago and the legislation relating to the atomic testing that took place in Australia in the 1950s and '60s is a good example of the denial of truth and, with it, the denial of justice for so many defence veterans and civilians. Every bit of government recognition and limited support conceded had to be fought for over decades against governments that showed less respect for the people affected than perhaps enemy forces may have shown; in turn, adding to the psychological trauma endured by those affected. There would be little else more demoralising to a veteran than denial of justice by the government in a country where a soldier had served. Over the years, I have personally raised several matters relating to individuals who were seeking compensation or recognition of their war service with the government—sometimes with some success, other times with very limited success.

Another example I refer to is the effect of the Vietnam War on soldiers. There are few, if any, Vietnam veterans that I know who have not been left physically or emotionally affected by their experiences. Only those who have confronted the horrors of war would ever understand the effect on a person's life, and Vietnam had its own unique characteristics. Each year, I attend the Vietnam veterans services, as I did again this year on 18 August, to remember Australia's Vietnam veterans and to commemorate the Battle of Long Tan. This year's service was again organised by the City of Salisbury and the northern branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association, and once again held at Henderson Square at the Montague Farm Estate in Pooraka, where several years ago a permanent Vietnam War memorial was established. I've often visited the northern branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association in Adelaide and spoken with and met many of the members and looked at how they support one another. In many cases, were it not for the support that they give each other, some of them would find life very difficult after having served in Vietnam. I understand that over 500 Australians lost their lives in the Vietnam War, and 58 of those were from South Australia.

The keynote speaker at this year's service was Gaynor Tilley, who served as a nurse in Vietnam. She provided a personal insight into her time there, including some horrific stories. Just listening to her on the day of the service and hearing her very personal account of some of her experiences not only brought back the reality of the war to many of the veterans who were there; for those of us who did not serve in Vietnam, it gave a clear insight into what some of them must have endured as they served our country. Stories about events similar to those that Gaynor referred to will be forever etched in the minds of those who were there and they will never forget them—events which I suspect every person who ever served in Vietnam would have similar experiences of and, in turn, similar memories about.

One person who not only experienced the Vietnam War but has since extensively researched, written and spoken about the war, particularly its aftereffects on veterans, is Dr Glen Edwards. Glen Edwards was one of the first to recognise the psychological injury that Vietnam veterans live with every day on returning from service. He publicly shared his insight from his research in the two books that he wrote about the Vietnam War. The first, Vietnam: The War Within, was published in 1992, and in more recent years was Beyond Dark Clouds, which is a collection of personal stories from Vietnam veterans from Australia, the US and New Zealand who speak openly about the effect of the war on themselves, their partners and their families. Glen served in the Army as a national serviceman and then as a regular soldier serving as a medic in Vietnam. He saw firsthand what it was like to be there and the events that so many of his fellow soldiers had to go through. Glen went on to study in South Australia at the Sturt College of Advanced Education and then at Flinders University. He did further studies at the University of West Florida in the US and then studied again at Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine in Japan. His studies and his work have focused on research, clinical work, lecturing and helping people, predominantly but not exclusively veterans, with post-traumatic stress syndrome. Glen has worked for both the Australian and US governments and the World Health Organization. He volunteered and was contracted to help in Japan and China following the east Japan earthquake and tsunami in 2011 and after the Sichuan province earthquake in China. Glen also worked extensively in the US with veterans and native veterans and was adopted by two Sioux tribes.

I want to quote from Glen's introductory comments to his book, Beyond Dark Clouds. He says:

With each unfolding story we see veterans and their families clearly exposing the fragility and inner conflicts we all harbour at times throughout our lives. The emotional and psychological challenges are often faced alone and in silence, because of the prejudice and stigma associated with mental health, along with the fear of being judged as weak or crazy.

Partners and children did not go to Vietnam but may have been irreversibly scarred by Vietnam, as well. And again, going on to Glen's comments, he says:

Equally unfairly, the partner and children have for a long period of time silently borne the burden of society for the veteran. Much of their pain and suffering has been locked away deep within their hearts and minds, shared only in secret or not at all.

Those comments, I believe, sum it up beautifully. Glen talks about how, for so many of them, they carry the burden and the pain with them and never say very much at all. The only ones who understand it, who perhaps share in it, are quite often partners and other family members, who also have to not only share it but in reality live through whatever the former veteran is living through.

I recently met with Dr Glen Edwards. He is a person I've known for some years, but I recently met with him, and he told me again about some of the work he continues to do overseas, particularly in Japan and China, and he also travels frequently back to the US. I take this opportunity to commend him for being one of the first people to apply himself to helping war veterans, particularly with their psychological health concerns. I can commend him for sharing his work so widely, not only through the writing of his books but also through the ongoing work that he continues to do each and every day. As a result of his experience, he is quite often called in to help people who are suffering psychological problems in other areas of society, because it's understood that he has the experience. And, as I referred to earlier, whether it's trauma that has arisen from a natural disaster or through service, whether it's police forces or the ambulance services or the like, it's that understanding of what those people may be living through each and every day that enables the person trying to help to do so.

On 14 August, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs made a ministerial statement in the House about veterans and their families. I noted some of the statistics from the statement, and I want to quote some. Firstly, there are currently 58,000 men and women in the ADF, and, in 2016-17, 5,200 left the service, of which about 1,400 separated involuntarily. The average serving time is eight and a half years. There are about 320,000 veterans in Australia, of whom 165,800 are DVA clients. Between 2001 and 2015, there were 325 certified suicide deaths of ADF members, with 51 per cent of those from amongst ex-service members. At least 45,000 veterans live with a mental health service-related disability, and more two-thirds of them have post-traumatic stress disorder. All of those figures give rise to several questions. Firstly, how do those statistics compare with the statistics of other comparable countries? Why are suicide rates and mental health problems so high amongst veterans? Why are 1,400 serving ADF personnel discharged involuntarily each year?

Military service is unique, and only our defence personnel can speak about the personal sacrifices, risks and harsh conditions that they endure. It's particularly the case if they're then called to active duty, which I have little doubt takes its toll not only in terms of them being away from home but also in being at risk every day of their life and seeing the horrors of war right before their eyes. It is my understanding that only a person who has ever been in that situation could truly come to terms with it. The truth is that, in coming to terms with it, many of them find they cannot cope. I have spoken to some veterans who have returned and, in more recent times, with a veteran who served in the Middle East. He was trying to set up a support group for his colleagues, because he understood not only what he went through and how it affected his life and that of his partner, who was also a defence person, but also how they might be able to use their experience to support others. It was a wonderful gesture on his part that he showed that level of concern.

The truth is that, if we have all of those statistics, it may be that our ADF personnel are either not well enough prepared before they enlist and go into a military conflict or perhaps they are not well enough supported when they come home. I don't know, and I'm not in any way making any suggestions. I simply ask the question: are we providing them with the adequate support at the time of enlistment, during their training period and at the time they return home? Maybe if we did and we were able to improve that level of support then particularly the level of psychological health problems could be lowered.

I understand that the Department of Veterans' Affairs spends some $4.9 billion per annum on health services for our 291,000 Australians. From my quick calculations—and I stand to be corrected—that is much, much higher per capita than for the rest of Australia. Yes, I accept that they are a unique category of Australians, but it seems to me that, if we were able to give the veterans some additional support, it would not only be in the nation's economic interests but also be in the social interests of our community to do so, and it would be the right thing to do.

The last thing I want to mention is that our defence personnel and our veterans obviously span decades. The truth of the matter is that we're now dealing with defence personnel who enlisted predominantly since World War II. The reality is that most of those who enlisted before that have since passed away. I frequently associate with them and I have a strong defence network in my community. Indeed, on Sunday, I'll be attending the charter lunch of the National Servicemen's Association, Para District Branch, in South Australia, which I attend every year. I speak firsthand on a regular basis with veterans in my electorate, and one thing that they continuously raise with me that they would like to see improved is the support that they get from government with respect to a number of the needs that they have. I believe that this legislation, by focusing on our defence personnel, goes some way towards doing that, and I hope it will be an improvement on what is presently available to them.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. The purpose of this bill is to create the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act—or the DRC Act, for ease of reference—which will be a re-enacted version of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, or the SRCA. The DRC Act will be a military-specific statute that will provide for the payment of compensation for injuries arising out of or in the course of employment in the Defence Force for personnel employed after 1 December 1998 and before 1 July 2004.

Before I focus on the aspects of the legislation, I just want to touch on the experience I had as part of the parliamentary placement program, which is a great opportunity for members of parliament to engage with members of the ADF in the Air Force, the Army and the Navy, and a chance for politicians to gain a better insight into what goes on. I know that every member of parliament, every MP and every senator who has participated in that program has always learnt a great deal and been nothing but impressed with the professionalism of our ADF personnel.

Recently, I was able to have a look at the Army Aboriginal Community Assistance Program, the AACAP, in Toomelah in northern New South Wales in Deputy Speaker Coulton's electorate. I was nothing but impressed with what the commanding officer, Major Venz, and his team of engineers were doing in Toomelah—incredible.

With the Army Aboriginal Community Assistance Program, which has been running for 21 years, we're able to combine expertise for the engineers so they're practising what they will need to do in times of war—hopefully, not something that they will call on—or maybe in times of disaster by working in Indigenous communities around Australia. This program in is a collaboration between the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in its capacity of running the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs department and the Army, with the Army providing the personnel, equipment and resources. In this case, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet made a contribution of $7 million, and the community of Toomelah, about 20 or 30 kays south of Goondiwindi, will end up with an incredible piece of infrastructure—a great community centre, a new multipurpose facility. They're also doing some repairs to the local roads, local community roads and refurbishing the local church and also the football oval. They are working on a greater investment, I guess, by investing in the people of Toomelah, providing some training—some hospitality training, some business administration, first-aid skills, strapping; all sorts of investments—which hopefully will pay off for years and years to come, and I hope will result in recruitment to the ADF of people from the Toomelah community.

I want to congratulate and thank Commanding Officer Venz and all of the engineers and people who showed me around on my visit to the Toomelah Aboriginal community. They even let me drive a grader, which'd be something my grandfather TJ Morris might have been a bit horrified by. It was quite an experience to be up on top of the roof of this new facility, having a look at what they do.

But those are people who are in the ADF right now. The legislation before us—to return to the DRC Act—will not confer any new rights. It mirrors the current provisions of the SRCA. The review of the Military Compensation Scheme conducted in 1999, the Tanzer review, noted the specific conditions that exist in military life and the impact on ADF members.

The MRCA was introduced following the Tanzer review and, consistent with the recommendations from that review, it implemented a more integrated approach to military compensation for those who served on or after 1 July 2004. It covers all members of the permanent forces, all members of the reserve forces—and, just in case a particular activist gets animated, I do declare I have some interest in that. But before there is any concern about section 44 of the Constitution being breached in terms of profiting under the Crown, I can confirm that I've only ever done unpaid service in that capacity. It also covers cadets and officers, including instructors of cadets; persons who hold an honorary rank or appointment in the ADF and who perform acts at the request or direction of the Defence Force; and persons who perform acts at the request or direction of the Defence Force as an accredited representative of a registered charity.

The MRCA legislation was designed to cover all elements of military service. In 2009, the Campbell review recommended a military-specific compensation scheme. It called for a review of the legislative schemes that governed military compensation for service before 1 July 2004. This bill will carve out from the SRCA the workers compensation entitlements of Defence Force members who served before 1 July 2004. It will ensure that Defence Force members will not be impacted by any amendments to the SRCA.

It's important that this parliament and all Australians recognise the unique nature of military service. We know that it is challenging; we know that it causes extra stress. And it is important that Defence Force personnel are compensated for any injuries incurred in the course of their employment. They deserve no less. The work that our defence personnel do is important and dangerous work, whether it be in Toomelah or on foreign postings. We should not be complacent about our defence forces and those who are called to serve. We need to look after them while they're serving and, obviously, we need to look after them when they return.

Similarly, I'd like to mention our Returned and Services League and associated entities and the great work they do in supporting both current and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force and their families. I have five RSL clubs in Moreton: Sherwood-Indooroopilly, Salisbury, Stephens, Sunnybank and Yeronga-Dutton Park. I've spent quite a bit of time with these clubs and worked closely with them in recent years, particularly on their ceremonies for the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings and a few other community projects. The RSL has a very proud tradition. It is one of our oldest and most respected national organisations, first founded in 1916. As well as supporting and serving our ex-service men and women, the RSL promotes a secure, stable and progressive Australia. We're indebted to them for the services that they continue to provide, not only directly to the returned service men and women but indirectly through the community work they do.

In particular, I have to mention the Sunnybank RSL and their work with the local Chinese community. As the make-up of my community changed, they decided to create a memorial for all the people of Chinese heritage who have served Australia in past wars. The memorial recognises soldiers like Billy Sing and Caleb Shang, who fought in World War I, and Jack Wong Sue, who served for Australia in World War II, to name but a few. Often these people were shot at and put in harm's way but weren't able to vote in the country they called home.

There are many other great stories of courage and bravery from the Chinese Australian diaspora, and they have been commemorated by this memorial. One of these stories is of Private Billy Sing, who was a sniper with the 5th Australian Light Horse Regiment. He was a kangaroo shooter from northern Queensland originally, but he went over to Gallipoli and was conservatively credited with more than 150 kills in Gallipoli. He was known to his fellow soldiers as 'the assassin' and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for conspicuous gallantry as a sniper at ANZAC. To this day, the Australian Army snipers recognise the skill of Billy Sing.

The physical memorial was a labour of love for the Chinese community, and it has contributed to stronger links between that community and the local RSL. It's a continuing reminder of the diversity, cooperation, understanding and friendship that exists on Brisbane's south side and also goes a long way to recognising some of the sleights and the racisms that existed 100 years ago, when people were allowed to fight and die for their country but not allowed to own land because they were seen to be not Australian, because they looked Chinese. Whilst there is a physical memorial, there is also an ongoing series of bursaries, where local school students enter into an essay competition, so they own the story and they can tell the story as well as be recognised every year on Anzac Day and the like.

I also point out that the success of the Chinese war memorial has inspired commemoration contributions from other communities, and now the Indian community has a project underway to erect a memorial for the Indian-Australian service men and women who have contributed to Australia's war efforts in the past and are doing so now. In fact, there was a fundraising dinner that I attended with the member for Bonner, who was representing the minister at the table. He spoke about the winning design for this memorial for the Indian community. We saw a mock-up of the winning design. The RSL was present, as were 11 students from Griffith University, who turned up for the dinner. I think it's going to be a great project. I look forward to working with the Indian-Australian community and seeing that memorial completed in due course. Like the Chinese memorial, there will also be bursaries associated with the memorial so that there will be a physical memorial in the grounds of the RSL, but there'll also be a living bursary where students from local high schools will do the research and tell these stories over and over again, which is the way to keep the Anzac tradition alive. It is important, obviously, wherever we can, to show our respect for all Australian servicemen and women.

These memorials, that I mentioned, the Chinese and Indian war memorials, will be a permanent show of respect for these brave Australians. Sadly, some of these men and women may not have been shown the respect they deserved when they were alive and when they were wearing the uniform of the nation that they called home. We have only had protections in our laws from being offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated on the basis of our race for the last 20 years. It is a reality, but we need to make sure that we work with our RSLs wherever we can to make sure that they are strong, vibrant service organisations that reach out and connect with the former ADF personnel and make sure they have strong connections with their communities.

I wanted to particularly mention the Sunnybank RSL and commend Hugh Polson and his initiative to erect these memorials for the Chinese and Indian servicemen and women. These activities will create greater awareness of the role of all Australians in our history. And, as I said, it will counter some of the racist rhetoric that occasionally gets sprouted in some political quarters. All Australian servicemen and women deserve to be looked after when their service is completed and when they are serving this nation. They deserve to be respected, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all of the members who contributed to the debate on this bill and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for the veteran community demonstrated by the opposition. This bill marks the largest reform of veterans legislation in decades. Its purpose is to bring all entitlements for Australian Defence Force members and former members with service prior to 1 July 2004 from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, the SRCA, and duplicate that coverage under a standalone act which will be known as the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 2016. If passed, it will mean for the first time since 1988 all veterans' entitlements will sit under the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. This will acknowledge the unique nature of service and protect veterans and their families from any unintended legislation changes by other portfolios.

The government has acknowledged that this is a significant change and has been conservative in the proposed amendments. As a result, this bill simply replicates the SRCA. Eligibility and benefits under the act will be the same as those currently available to current and former ADF members under the existing SRCA. All case law and precedents will stand. The enactment provisions have been carefully drafted to ensure that eligibility and benefits under the DRCA will be the same as those that were available to serving and former Defence Force members under the SRCA at the time the injury or illness was sustained. In practical terms, this will mean that, when applying the DRCA to a compensation claim, it will be as if the DRCA existed at the time the injury or illness was sustained, as the DRCA incorporates all previous versions of the SRCA. There will be a large number of earlier versions of the DRCA as the SRCA had been amended by almost 70 acts since it was introduced. Of those acts, almost half made amendments which would have impacted on the SRCA, and now the DRCA, as it applied to Defence Force members.

To ensure that Defence Force members would not be adversely affected by the retrospective application of an earlier version of the SRCA as the DRCA, the DRCA includes a legal remedy that can be applied when the retrospective application results in an adverse outcome. A Henry VIII clause has been included in the bill. The Henry VIII clause enables the Governor-General to make regulations that modify the operation of the DRCA in the event that the minister is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to make the regulations to ensure that no person, except the Commonwealth, is disadvantaged by the enactment of the bill. The regulation may then be applied to other members, or to a class of members in similar circumstances, which addresses any disadvantage to a person that the act may cause. All regulations made under the Henry VIII clause are required to be tabled in parliament and are subject to a disallowance period of 15 sitting days by either house of the parliament. This provides transparency and scrutiny that any use of the Henry VIII clause will address disadvantage to a person caused by the act. The government also made the commitment that, should the Henry VIII clause ever need to be used for any veteran or group of veterans, the department will have processes to proactively communicate with the veterans community and to check to see if there are any other instances of veterans who might affected.

Arrangements and transitional rules currently in place for SRCA clients with eligibility under more than one act—that is, under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and/or the Military Rehabilitation And Compensation Act 2004—are not impacted by the commencement of the DRCA. The development of what has become the DRCA was announced by government nearly two years ago, enabling comprehensive consultations on the progress and development of the DRCA, which was provided to ex-service representations and the departments of Defence and Employment. The enactment of the DRCA is a further example of the government's commitment to recognising and meeting the needs of current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and their families.

I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for their work on the inquiry into the bill. In particular, I would like to thank the former Chair, Dr Chris Back, and Deputy Chair, Senator Gallacher. The committee has recommended that the bill pass the parliament. I would like to acknowledge all the contributions to the debate on this bill that have been made by members, and I look forward to the contributions of senators. I would like to particularly acknowledge the cooperation of the opposition; in particular, the shadow minister, the member for Kingston, who has engaged with the development of the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.