Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a great opportunity to be able to rise and talk to the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018. It's very positive that in the House this afternoon the Labor Party has chosen to support this bill and support the continued assistance that we are giving to veterans. This bill is largely an accounting mechanism to enable the Department of Veterans' Affairs to best look after families where, for one reason or another, there has been an overpayment. This generally happens around the time of a death of a veteran who had been receiving a pension and the pension continues to flow for a few weeks after that death. Reconciliation needs to take place. These reconciliations have been going on for as long as military pensions have been paid out. A little reconciliation needs to take place, with a slight overpayment being fixed up by the fact that there is always a bereavement payment.

We've identified the fact that some administrative changes made in 1995 have effectively meant that this ongoing work, this practice that we see happening each and every day, may not be quite kosher. This piece of legislation addresses that so the common practice can continue in a way that is going to be least intrusive to families when they are going through a period of grief.

So, as I said earlier, we believe that this is not going to alter the current practice. It's going to enable the current practice to take place in a manner that is fully agreeable to all those involved. This practice also happens in relation to Centrelink pensioner payments. The main reason we are bringing this bill forward is to give transparency to the ex-service organisations, who also need to know exactly what this bill is going to bring about—to maintain the status quo, to ensure that these adjustments are made in that one single administrative process. That's hopefully going to be a good outcome for people that are in this position. As I said, this inadvertent issue relates to a provision that was removed way back in 1995, and whilst the practice has continued since that time, we have to acknowledge that we have to clean this up. That's why we are doing this.

I think it also gives us an opportunity to touch on the lot of our veterans. Everybody in the House makes sure every time they get the opportunity to say how proud we are of our veterans, and I want to add my voice to that growing number of parliamentarians. We don't understand—I'm sure we think we do, but we don't understand—exactly the sacrifice and the service that many of our military servicemen afford this country. We also need to acknowledge how tough it must be for these servicemen and women when they try and assimilate back into civilian life. Having spent a large portion of their time away from their families, moving back into the family on a full-time basis might not necessarily be as easy as everybody thinks it will be. They may be moving into civilian employment, where maybe respect for each other isn't what they've expected over the previous period of time in the armed services, in the military. Their ability needs to be given a fair amount of empathy because the work that has to take place on behalf of these servicemen and women is incredibly difficult.

I might add that these are the people who have come back in 100 per cent good shape—in fantastic shape physically and in 100 per cent shape mentally. It is still an incredibly difficult task for them to assimilate back into civilian life without the feeling that it is incredibly difficult. Sometimes we need to acknowledge that. Then, of course, there needs to be additional support given to those men and women who may be, in one way or another, seriously affected by the service that they've given in the military.

It's really a worthwhile point for us all to ponder: what more we can do. In fact, we have far too many suicides by the people who have returned from combat in our recent skirmishes, in our recent combats. For our veterans to be obviously affected by post-traumatic stress and then to struggle to find the support that they need is something that we need to give continued and growing support towards as best we possibly can.

I'm very proud of the work that we are doing as a government to try and assist the veterans with the counselling that they need and the counselling that their families may need. When I was the veterans' affairs minister in Victoria, we were able to build accommodation facilities in the city to provide medium- to long-term accommodation and support services in a whole range of health areas. We were able to do that in conjunction with the RSL of Victoria. We were the main funders, but the RSL are still are the operators of that facility. It's located in Richmond, close to public transport and close to a lot of amenities. It's located in an area that can offer single accommodation, husband-and-wife accommodation and also accommodation for a full family. As I say, it was the RSL going back to the government and saying, 'This is the area that we think is currently being missed. It might take somebody approximately six weeks to three months to sort out the mess that they are in. They highlighted that they needed that type of support to be added to the myriad supports that are available for our veterans.

As has been spoken about this afternoon, we've got support for our Veterans' Children Education Scheme and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme to try to assist the children of our veterans with their education and the supports that they need as well. The supports that they need are extremely many and varied. I want to congratulate the minister for bringing this legislation forward. Hopefully, we can sort this issue out. Hopefully, we can make sure that we continue the practice of having minimal impact on these families as they go through their time of loss and grief, we can make the accounting procedures as simple as possible and we can continue to raise the need for government to be in lock-step with our veterans when they return—for all those who are in good health, all those who are struggling at various stages, all those who are struggling every day, and all those somewhere in between, because the lot of our veterans is a mixed and varied lot and they have varying degrees of capacity to live a full and wholesome life. What has to be acknowledged is the respect that the community of Australia has towards our veterans. We need to make sure that they know that they have that respect from each and every one of us.

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

I'm pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 and I want to applaud the government for the passage of this legislation. Clearly, we support the proposals within it. When veterans pass away, it is vital for surviving partners to be assisted and treated with compassion and sympathy. The bereavement payment, which is made up of 14 weeks of the partner's income support payment, is to assist the surviving partner with costs following that death.

As we know, all families need a period of time to adjust their finances in such circumstances. However, surviving partners who have access often receive an overpayment of the veteran's income payments that continue after the passing. Sadly, it is a flaw in the system. This can lead to a debt being raised and add to the grieving and anxiety of the surviving partner and their family. As a result of this legislation, when this happens, DVA will now reduce the bereavement payment by the amount the veteran's partner has received since they passed away. The intention of recouping the cost in this fashion is to minimise unnecessary interactions with DVA during such a difficult time. The amendment will streamline the administrative processes. It's a straightforward amendment with no additional cost, and we're very pleased to be able to support it, and I commend the minister, the member for Gippsland, for bringing this piece of legislation forward.

Like me, I think that the member for Gippsland would support the amendment being proposed by the shadow minister, which reads:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes with concern that the Government has undermined veterans' access to health services".

I know in his heart of hearts that the member for Gippsland would support this amendment but simply won't, clearly, because it would undermine the policies which were introduced in 2014 by his government to freeze indexation on Medicare payments. The impact of that Medicare freeze has a direct correlation to veterans' access to services.

Currently—as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I'm sure the minister knows—all veterans have been granted access to allied and mental health services for mental health conditions, cancer and pulmonary tuberculosis through the nonliability healthcare policy. Some veterans have additional access through white cards and gold cards for their assessed conditions. As part of accessing these services, psychologists and other clinicians are paid by the government through the Department of Veterans' Affairs with a set fee with no gap to be paid by the veteran. This fee, paid by DVA, is tied to the Medicare rebate and indexed in line with the Medicare rebate. However, as there's been no indexation on Medicare rebates since 2014, there have been no corresponding increase in DVA rebates paid to the health professionals assisting our veterans.

We heard evidence of this last week in a defence committee hearing in Adelaide which is looking at the transition of Defence Force personnel to civilian life and talking about people being veterans whilst they're in service and how they're being cared for post-service. This indexation freeze has led to a situation where, as the rebate is no longer covering the cost of medical treatment and because our veterans cannot be charged a gap payment, sadly and ashamedly, some medical and allied health professionals have had no choice but to turn DVA clients away. I heard this from the College of Psychiatrists in evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in a hearing in Melbourne last week. It was made very clear that there are people being turned away from specialist services because of the fee. These are people who may well require important interventions for mental health issues, and now we've got to the state where medical practitioners and others who are entitled to charge under the Medicare schedule are turning veterans away or putting them at the bottom of their lists. They are not serving veterans.

I wonder if that's been in the front of mind of the Minister for Health or indeed the Prime Minister. After all, the Prime Minister would know about this. I'm sure that, as he churned through the budget papers as Treasurer, he would have seen this particular item and no doubt would have said, 'Well, this is a saving against the budget, against Medicare, something we will support.'

Well, Prime Minister, I would say to you: here's your chance to show your bona fides for the veteran community. Show your bona fides by going back to the cabinet table and talking to your now Treasurer and your health minister and, with the submission coming from the Department of Veterans' Affairs through the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, make a change to this ridiculous rule. Just get over the freeze, basically. Index the Medicare fee schedule as it should be indexed and ensure that veterans who properly need access to services can get access to services whether or not they can afford them. This is an issue which strikes at the very heart of our claimed support for veterans in this place.

A number of submissions to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into compensation and rehabilitation for veterans have seen some people very critical of the impact of what I've just referred to. The Prime Minister's own Prime Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans' Mental Health said in their submission:

It would appear there is a limited, but perhaps increasing, number of medical specialists turning our veterans away once they become aware they are DVA clients. The Council understands the concern regarding accepting DVA clients stems from the fact that MBS fees have been frozen for many years.

Well, isn't that a shame job? You'd think, would you not, that the government would say: 'Hang on, this is not good. We're happy to wrap ourselves in the flag and stand next to veterans and say how well we support them, but once we flip the page we see that, as a result of the Medicare freeze, now DVA clients are potentially missing out on access to services.' The Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service National Advisory Committee said:

The remuneration gap between seeing veterans versus private patients from the general community or Defence members is now so significant that clinical providers are prioritising other clients over DVA referrals. In some cases, providers are refusing to accept clients with DVA white or gold cards because of the poor remuneration offered.

It's a bit hard to understand how they could put that position forward. Unless they're on the bones of their backside—and not too many of these health professionals are, I have to say—you'd think they'd make sure in any event that these people who require access to services would get access to services. But clearly that's not their interest, because they're driven by the fee rather than the service.

These concerns confirm those raised by the Australian Medical Association over 18 months ago, following a survey of their members which found that almost 30 per cent of clinicians are no longer committed to treating veterans and are turning them away and that only 44 per cent of respondents would continue seeing veterans if the freeze were to continue. There are a couple of issues which arise from this, one of which is a standard of care. How can we guarantee that veterans are getting the quality of service they need to address their health needs when they're being forced to go to the lender of last resort, if you like? I think there is a problem here which is being swept under the carpet and ignored.

Whilst those opposite may protest that it's not their fault, it is their fault. They made the budget decision in 2014. Remember who the Prime Minister was then? It was the architect of the shenanigans that went on here a fortnight ago. He's still in this place. Perhaps he could gee-up the Prime Minister now he's been given a job as an envoy, God forbid, and say to the Prime Minister: 'Hang on, it's probably not a good thing to continue with this. Let's address this Medicare freeze issue.' And I would hope—and I'm sure he would—that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs would be attempting to counsel the government about the impact of this freeze on the treatment of our veterans.

It's not appropriate. It's not fair and it's something we shouldn't do. But somehow or another there is a view on that side of the parliament that this is acceptable. Well, I'd like them to justify how acceptable it is and explain to us—to the Australian community, particularly the veteran community—why it is acceptable that 56 per cent of respondents to an AMA survey say they would no longer service veterans because of this Medicare freeze. You don't have to be Einstein to work out the impact of that. We see, day in day out, people coming into this place and saying how we should be committed to our veterans, both serving and non-serving—those who have passed out of uniform and are now clients of DVA. It's not good enough.

I want to say to the government: we would support you to lift this freeze and address the question in a proper manner. But I'll bet that when we come to the vote on this amendment we'll get no support from the government. If those opposite don't give us support for the amendment, it will say to us that they think it's okay that veterans are unable to access services because of cost. A right which veterans have is effectively being taken away from them because of a budget decision by this government. It's tawdry. It's wrong. It shouldn't be, but it is. The government have an opportunity to fix it, but they won't. And the people who will suffer are those veterans who have served this nation proudly in our uniform. We have an obligation to these people and their families; we all admit it here. We say it all the time. But, by maintaining this freeze, those opposite are saying they only accept that obligation as a partial obligation. They don't see it as we on this side of the House see it—as the need to make sure that veterans have access to the health services they properly require at no cost to them.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 as part of this parliament's enduring responsibility to honour Australian veterans. I know that that sentiment is shared by, hopefully, everybody in this place as well as in the Senate. Any of us who have not been veterans will never appreciate the sacrifice or the preparedness to sacrifice that so many have been prepared to give to our great nation. I was reminded of this recently when I visited a veteran community in the Goldstein electorate, many of whom have previously been actively involved in the RSL. I visited Vasey RSL Care in Brighton East with Senator Jim Molan—of course a veteran himself. These champions included people like Bob Larkin, Peter Lanigan, Judy Smith, Dennis Pope, Ray Dunstan, Jordie Burgess, Jeff Walters and Roger Hyde. They have helped guide returning servicemen and women with distinction, and they have my gratitude and of course the gratitude of the Goldstein community. We will never forget your preparedness to sacrifice and to continue to honour veterans and their families.

That is, of course, what we seek to do and to enliven as part of this piece of legislation. The government has introduced a host of measures to improve the lives of veterans and their families and support them through difficult periods. This support is included in the 2018-19 budget, which allocates additional funding to dental and allied health services, improving mental health, assisting veterans in finding work and increasing access to Department of Veterans' Affairs services, as well as assisting veterans with the challenges of depression and associated mental health consequences and, tragically, the example of suicide. In 2017 there were 84 veteran suicides. I'm sure everybody here recognises that that number is simply not good enough.

So we have acted. We've delivered an additional $31 million in funding to support veterans' mental health on top of last year's increase of $58.1 million. We've provided an additional $8.3 million for improving employment opportunities for veterans, both in improving community engagement with veterans' employment and assisting veterans adjusting to civilian work. But the value and the contribution of what we are doing will never properly be measured in dollars and cents. It will only ever be fully realised in the lives lived and the circumstances avoided, to make sure that veterans can make a continuing contribution to their country and are able to stand on their own two feet, be fully accepted and embraced within our community and live full lives.

The Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 continues these important efforts. We are seeking to ease the bureaucratic burden and administration for bereaved families of veterans by simplifying the way the Department of Veterans' Affairs dispenses final payments. Importantly, this amendment does not change the amount paid to the veteran's family. We respect the importance of the veterans' service pension, income support supplement and social security pension. The bill reduces the administrative processes to alleviate the period of grieving for families of veterans. I would hope that no nobody would want a situation where you have a bereaved family and the biggest hurdle they face after their grief is red tape. After a veteran's passing, the Department of Veterans' Affairs entitles the surviving family to a bereavement payment, and we recognise that this payment plays an important role in supporting a grieving family in their tragedy.

However, when a veteran passes there is often a delay between their date of death and when the Department of Veterans' Affairs is notified. This means the final payment of pension is often higher than what the veteran's surviving partner is entitled to. This occurs because when the payment is issued to veterans while they are still alive, it is assumed they will be eligible for the entire period. Therefore, it is frequently the case that families owe the difference between the value of the veteran's pension that was paid and the value entitled to the veteran after considering their passing.

The current system is inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome on the families of those who have already lost a loved one. It requires they undergo a formal debt recovery method undertaken by the department. This bill seeks to simplify this process by deducting the overpaid value paid to the veteran and surviving partner over the bereavement payment entitled to the families, cutting out the unnecessary debt recovery stage.

There are 215,000 veterans receiving support from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and our measures aim to improve their lives, every single one of them. They're Aussies, just like us, and they deserve our support. So, with the measures in this bill, particularly in times of tragedy or in times where people are grieving, veterans' families will know that everything that this government can do to minimise their pain and the burden of bureaucracy is being taken off them so they can have their thoughts and prayers where they're properly deserved.

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

Labor supports the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018. The government, as we heard from previous speakers, has a duty to support our servicemen and women whilst in uniform and then when they leave the service and, of course, their families. We support any move to make this support more compassionate and reasonable. If there are overpayments of a bereavement payment, the recovery process should be as sympathetic and compassionate as possible and that is the intent of this bill.

I will now speak specifically in support of Labor's amendment to the bill. Our amendment is bringing attention to an area where veterans are not being treated with respect and sympathy or with compassion. What is happening is veterans are losing access to vital health services. The fact is that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's continued attacks on Medicare have now started to affect veterans and their families. We understand that this government do not value Medicare as we do. They have a track record of seeking to undermine it. It could be argued that some opposite actually want to destroy it, and let the market rip.

Labor established Medicare. We built it, we maintained it and we will continue to protect it because we know how important it is. We value it. The Department of Veterans' Affairs fee schedule, known as the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule, is linked to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and MBS rebates and, as a consequence of the ongoing Medicare freeze, as we heard from previous speakers, the DVA fee schedule has remained unchanged since 2014.

The DVA rebate no longer covers the cost of medical treatment and, because veterans cannot be charged a gap payment, some medical and allied health professionals are refusing to treat DVA clients. This is having a serious impact. I know of medical doctors who no longer take DVA clients. I know of many veterans who have been directly affected. Today in the House, the member for Sturt reflected on today's date and the shocking attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. As the shadow defence minister did, I want to acknowledge all Australians who have served in Afghanistan. It continues to be a difficult environment in which to assist that nation to move forward. Even today, we still have members of our ADF there in uniform assisting.

I remember 15 years ago, just two years after those dreadful attacks on September 11, when I was working in security roles in Kandahar, which had been the previous headquarters of the Taliban. I was working alongside the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the US military. We were ensuring that the loya jirga elections for the constitutional convention, a very important step for Afghanistan moving forward, were held in a safe manner. When we talk about freedom, the work of not only members of our Defence Force but others who have served us with the Federal Police and with humanitarian organisations and done other security work has been incredibly important for helping that nation to secure freedom.

During that time we were being actively targeted by the Taliban, who had melted back into the community, including through car bomb and grenade attacks. So I understand a little bit about the effect that working in those sorts of environments can have on our people. I understand from my service, both in and out of uniform, in Timor-Leste the sorts of difficult situations that Australians have confronted, confront and will continue to confront, whether they are capacity building, ensuring security as members of ADF, or working as first responders or in other difficult roles, including responding with humanitarian relief to our brothers and sisters in times of crisis and difficult circumstances.

Over those 15 years I've seen many friends—in uniform and then out of uniform after their service—self-medicating. This has happened whilst I've also seen medical and health services withdrawn. It's difficult to reconcile this with the rhetoric of those opposite—the flag waving and the pins on the lapels, which I notice hardly any of the frontbench opposite decided to continue with, having been given that badge of patriotism. It's difficult to see them hiding behind the service of others to try to say that they've got credibility here. I acknowledge the work that the Department of Veterans' Affairs does. I acknowledge the work that veterans' affairs ministers have done. But you can't say that you're doing everything you can. You just can't, because there are veterans out there hurting. There are doctors who are no longer seeing DVA clients, and they're doing that for a reason. It's hard to see people who have served this country suffering. It's hard to see a government that's not doing what it can to alleviate that suffering by improving the opportunities that our current and former serving people have to get the care that they need. It's simple!

The Australian Medical Association says that almost 30 per cent of specialists are no longer committed to treating veterans. Only 44 per cent of specialists said that they will continue to see veterans if the freeze continues, with the remainder considering other ways to charge veterans. I'll repeat that: they are considering other ways to charge veterans. What this means is veterans are now starting to suffer from reduced access to medical services. That must be tough for those opposite who profess to want to have the best medical support for our people, or who have served themselves and profess to want their comrades in arms to have the best access to services possible. I don't just know this from my own observations over more than 15 years; I know this is the case because I listen to the veterans in my electorate, in Darwin and Palmerston. We're a strong defence city with a large veteran community.

Earlier this year I held a veterans forum in my electorate, where the shadow veterans' affairs minister, the member for Kingston, and I heard firsthand accounts of the concerns of many veterans and the difficulties they face in the transition to civilian life. The member for Kingston addressed that gathering and took note of the particular issues faced by veterans and their families in the Top End. We heard of the different levels of service for white card holders in different parts of the country. Veterans move around, Defence members move around and their families move around, but what doesn't move around, and what doesn't get lifted from them, is the cumulative effect of their service. They reflected to us those different levels of service as they've moved around the country. We were told by one veteran that, while he had received good access to services in Sydney, it was much more difficult to access counselling and psychological services when he moved to Darwin.

We heard at the forum that gold card services are increasingly being told by medical practitioners that their books are full, and they are being turned away. Clearly those opposite agree that that is unacceptable. There is a clear need to improve access for veterans to mental health services and to professionals who have an understanding of the particular concerns of ex-service men and women. We must make sure that everything is done to enable those professionals who have that experience base to assist our serving and ex-serving people.

I am acutely aware of the human cost of the effects of the Medicare freeze on veterans not only in my electorate but also across the country. I've seen it across the country. I've seen it overseas. I've seen our brothers and sisters who have served this country on the run, not able to access the support that they need when they need it. I'm the first to applaud the non-liability mental health initiative. I'm not going on some partisan rant here. We need to fix this so that the people who have served our country have the best possible service that they can have.

The Prime Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans' Mental Health has said:

It would appear there is a limited, but perhaps increasing, number of medical specialists turning our veterans away once they become aware they are DVA clients. The Council understands the concern regarding accepting DVA clients stems from the fact that MBS fees have been frozen for many years.

I thought it helpful to put in a couple of these quotes. Those opposite, while they might not believe me, or agree with me, or think that my lived experience in seeing people who have served our country struggling and hearing their firsthand accounts about how they used to be able to see a certain health professional but then that health professional was no longer accepting DVA clients—if they don't accept that testimony—may well listen to others. The Veterans and Veterans Counselling Service National Advisory Committee has said:

The remuneration gap between seeing veterans versus private patients from the general community or Defence members is now so significant that clinical providers are prioritising other clients over DVA referrals. In some cases, providers are refusing to accept clients with DVA white or gold cards because of the poor remuneration offered.

As I said, I know doctors. I've talked to them and I've pleaded with some of them to continue to take DVA clients. It's a matter of life and death at times. It's a very important issue for our country, but, despite repeated attempts to raise this issue, the fee schedule continues to be out of step with what providers charge and it's resulting in veterans being turned away from services.

From where I stand, I think that Australians are right not to trust the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government with Medicare, and veterans can't trust the government to take care of their health needs until this issue is dealt with. I urge the government to take action on this issue and ensure veterans are not disadvantaged by their DVA healthcare cards and are able to access the services that they need. I know and other service people, such as first responders, know that those who have been in a difficult situation need the best possible health care that our country can give them. That's what they deserve. For DVA clients there is a way that the government can help, so do it.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Cyber Security and Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to commend that very powerful and passionate speech from my colleague, the member for Solomon, who has been an active advocate for veterans for many, many years, including before he came into politics. You can tell from the passion and the power of that speech that he really feels this. I really do want to commend him for that heartfelt speech, that powerful speech, that passionate speech, and also his commitment and constant advocacy for our veterans. I thank him so much. It was an honour to be in the chamber to hear it.

It is an honour to speak on the Veterans' Entitlement Amendment Bill 2018. It's long overdue, as many of my colleagues have said. I welcome the fact that the opposition has suggested an amendment—that, whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes with concern that the government has undermined veterans' access to health services. We heard from the member for Solomon and we heard from the member for Lingiari and we heard from so many of my colleagues, including the member for Eden-Monaro. Two out of three of those men have served our nation in the Australian Defence Force. One was a former minister for defence personnel and veterans' affairs. These are men with lots of personal experience, as well as experience learnt through conversations with veterans over decades and decades. As we heard from them, there are significant challenges facing the veterans community when it comes to health—not just physical health but also mental health.

Currently, as we know, DVA's fee schedule, known as the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule, is linked to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and MBS rebates. As a consequence of the government's ongoing Medicare freeze, the Veterans' Affairs fee schedule has remained stagnant since 2014. This has led to the situation where the DVA rebate is no longer covering the cost of medical treatment and, because our veterans cannot be charged a gap payment, some medical and allied health professionals have had no choice but to turn DVA clients away. We've heard of the firsthand experiences that our members have had in terms of dealing with veterans who have been turned away. As the member for Solomon said, he's begged medical professionals and mental health professionals to take on these clients. He's begged them because they have been turned away.

What this means is that veterans are now starting to suffer from reduced access to medical services for their physical and mental health needs, and reduced access means veterans are less likely to see their medical specialists unless they fork out cash or their credit card, rather than using their DVA card. In other words, DVA white cards and gold cards are no longer a vet's rolled-gold access to specialist services, as specialists can't charge fees on the client's card. We're talking about access to services, such as psychologists and other allied health clinicians, being denied to these veterans because of the Medicare freeze. It is absolutely outrageous, which is why I commend my colleague the shadow minister for veterans' affairs for actually putting this amendment forward and those who have spoken about their direct experiences of what this actually means.

The undermining of veterans' access to health services by this government, by those opposite, stemming from that appalling 2014 budget, is having a significant impact on those who have proudly served our nation, who have given their all to defend our nation, to defend our national security, to help others in need. And how does this government repay them? I again commend my colleagues who have spoken on this bill and I also commend the shadow minister for veterans' affairs for moving this very, very important amendment.

In discussing the great work being done by the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, I just want to draw the House's attention to three major initiatives that she has introduced since she has taken on this portfolio. The first was announced just recently. The shadow minister announced that a Shorten Labor government, should it be elected, would put in place a formal agreement to ensure the nation's armed forces were fully supported during and after their service. We will legislate regular reporting to parliament on how Australia is supporting military personnel.

Labor, under a Shorten Labor government, should we be elected, will sign Australia's first military covenant, recognising the immense commitment our armed forces make to serve their country, to formalise our nation's commitment to look after those who have served for our nation. The covenant will be similar to the United Kingdom's Armed Forces Covenant, a principles document that promises that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families will be treated fairly. A Shorten Labor government, should we be elected, will work with the Australian Defence Force and Department of Veterans' Affairs and ex-service organisations to draft the relevant wording of a military covenant and associated legislation.

Labor would also, should we be elected, introduce legislation that would require future governments to report annually to parliament on how they are meeting their responsibilities to support our serving and ex-service personnel so that it doesn't slip under the radar. It is vitally important that we continue to discuss improving transparency and improving accountability to ensure that we are providing the best service for our veterans and the best service for our serving personnel so that there are no blind spots and so that those gaps are addressed.

I also want to draw attention to another initiative that my colleague announced—last year, actually, but it again highlights the fact that she has been very active in this space, and I applaud her for that. It's not just veterans that we are talking about here and it is not just current serving members, men and women, that we are talking about here; we are also talking about the families. You know, Deputy Speaker Hastie—you've served—that it is not just the serving member who does it tough, who faces a number of challenges; it is also the families who are there supporting them. When you're off serving your nation in Afghanistan, with your family at home not knowing where you are and whether you're okay, it does place an enormous strain on families back home who are trying to provide the most support possible to you. So I was delighted that my colleague, the shadow minister, also said that should a Shorten Labor government be elected we would develop a family engagement and support strategy for defence personnel and veterans to provide greater support to our military families. They play a pivotal role in supporting our current serving ADF men and women and our veterans, and it's important that we ensure that we give them the support they need to address the unique challenges of military family life.

I want to focus on the initiative that was launched by my colleague, the member for Eden-Monaro, the shadow minister and myself in March this year. It is a comprehensive veterans package, a veterans employment policy, that we committed $121 million to, should we be elected, to provide greater support to our defence personnel as they transition to civilian life. The figures are quite staggering. You would probably be aware of them, Deputy Speaker Hastie, but best estimates cite that veterans' unemployment is currently sitting at 30 per cent. Thirty per cent of our veterans, those who have served our nation, are unemployed. And, for those who did not medically discharge, there is an estimated 11.2 per cent unemployment rate, which is more than double the national average. This is absolutely unacceptable.

That is why this employment policy is well overdue and very, very welcome. And it comes from opposition. I will very quickly run through and translate the policy. It ensures that veterans receive recognition of prior skills and experience within civilian professional organisations and institutions. It ensures that eligible businesses will be provided with a training grant of up to $5,000 in order to help veterans gain the skills and experience they need to move into a civilian job. It will establish an employment and transition service that provides greater individualised, tailored support to transitioning veterans over a longer period of time. There is a range of initiatives in this employment package. Again I commend my colleague, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, for the extensive consultation she did in developing this strategy and for coming up with such a comprehensive policy, which addresses so many of those areas that are currently being overlooked.

Finally, I want to focus on two events that I went to recently that commemorated and honoured the veterans who have served our nation and also those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Just last Friday I joined the new foreign minister, the former defence minister, for the commemoration of the National Service Memorial at the National Service Memorial Day at the Australian War Memorial. Thousands of Australian men undertook national service in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s, and that was commemorated last Friday. My father did national service in the 1950s. A lot of Australians tend to overlook the scale of national service in this country. Between 1951 and 1959, 18-year-old men were required to register for national service, and over 220,000 underwent six months of compulsory military training in the Navy, Army or Air Force. The exact figure is actually 227,000. At the event on the national service day on Friday we had an opportunity to commemorate those, including those who made the ultimate sacrifice in their national service.

We also had the opportunity to honour the fact that one of the national servicemen, Allen May, donated his medals to the Australian War Memorial. It was a very, very special moment. Mr May was 21 when he was conscripted in 1965 to Vietnam. After arriving in Vietnam, he became a forward scout. Historians believe he fired the first shots in what became known as the Battle of Long Tan. It was a beautiful gesture to present those medals to the War Memorial. They will be a constant reminder to all of us here in Australia and to anyone who visits the Australian War Memorial of the significant contribution that our national servicemen made to our nation over all that period of time, and a constant reminder of those who, in national service, made the ultimate sacrifice. I don't know whether many Australians really understand the scale of the national servicemen who served for that very, very lengthy period of time. It was an honour to be there at that very special memorial, which is nearly 10 years old, alongside the War Memorial with national service veterans. There were some veterans from Canberra and there were some veterans who had travelled from all over the country. It was a great honour to be with them to commemorate their service and to honour their mates who didn't make it home.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to enter the debate tonight on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 and also to strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. I just want to touch on the issue the member for Canberra—who has been a passionate and fierce advocate for Defence Force families and men and women serving in the ADF—raised in the debate tonight about national servicemen. In my electorate of Oxley there is what we call one of the headquarters for national servicemen, the Wacol Barracks. That was a significant area, used during the war and also postwar, where many young men provided great service to our nation. I actually met with the National Servicemen's Association from Queensland two weeks ago. They are on a mission to build a memorial at Wacol for those 'nashos' who lost their lives during service. There isn't a lot of recognition for those men who, through accidents and through incidents, were killed during their national service.

Tonight, in the House of Representatives, I place on record my thanks to, particularly, those great men who gave outstanding service and, in some ways, who've not been fully recognised as part of the nashos. I know, by talking to their leadership in Queensland, just how passionate and dedicated they are to honouring and remembering their comrades, those brave men, that served Australia but haven't yet been recognised. Tonight, I place on record that I will be doing what I can. They want to have a memorial erected for next year. Wacol is a wonderful community. It was the site of a couple of things: great army barracks and, later, through the fifties, sixties and seventies, a migrant processing camp, where the second-largest number of migrants were processed in Australia. That happened in the south-west suburbs of Brisbane. They are very historic suburbs, but, in some ways, they are suburbs that have great military connection to our country.

As the member for Oxley, I want to take the opportunity tonight to place on record my support for this bill. It is a minor amendment, but it is an important amendment that we will be dealing with tonight. We've heard speakers from both sides of the chamber recognising the great service to our nation of those who have served in the ADF, and service to one's country is nothing short of selfless. When a person makes this commitment, we as a nation must in turn undertake a commitment to support that individual and their family both during and after their service.

Tonight's bill amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 in relation to how the Department of Veterans' Affairs administers bereavement payments. We know these amendments result in no changes to current entitlements to bereavement payments, but rather insert a new section to the VEA that was omitted in amendments in 1996. We know that the section was inadvertently removed in the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Budget Measures 1995-96) Bill (No. 2) 1995 and provides the legislative power for DVA to reduce bereavement payments where an overpayment has occurred. So DVA already has the legal authority to provide the bereavement payment and to recover any overpayment of income support pensions paid to veterans after their death.

The process has been in place since the 1980s, but, as I said, the legislation provision was inadvertently removed in 1996. We need to do this to make sure that this issue is resolved. We know that the passing of a loved one is particularly difficult and, when this occurs, it is entirely understandable that the need to notify the relevant government departments is not always prominent. This means that until the DVA is notified, the veteran will continue to receive payments after their death. This results in an overpayment to the partner.

I support this bill tonight, as does the Labor opposition, and as our shadow minister has outlined, in the attempt to deal with the situation while, of course, respecting and placing the wellbeing of veterans' families at the forefront of policymaking. I'm happy to place on record my support for the bill, but I'm also happy tonight to address the shadow minister's amendment, which reads:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes with concern that the Government has undermined veterans' access to health services".

I want to touch on this because I know from representing members of the ADF and talking to members who have served that they are feeling short-changed by the fact that the frozen Medicare rebates have included allied health services. This is a throwback to the disastrous 2014 Abbott budget. We know there has not been any indexation of Medicare rebates since 2014 and, as a result, no corresponding increase in the DVA rebate paid to health professionals helping our veterans. I want to be very clear that this is a serious issue. This is a serious issue that means some of our veterans are not getting, in my opinion, the health care that they deserve.

A number of submissions to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into compensation and rehab for veterans have seen stakeholders critical of this very key impact. I want to read into the Hansard tonight, and reiterate my support for some of these submissions, what the Prime Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans' Mental Health said in their submission. They said:

It would appear there is a limited, but perhaps increasing, number of medical specialists turning our veterans away once they become aware they are DVA clients. The Council understands the concern regarding accepting DVA clients stems from the fact that MBS fees have been frozen for many years.

The Department of Veterans' Affairs have conceded that there are serious issues with this freeze, with the Veterans and Veterans Counselling Service National Advisory Committee in their submission saying:

The remuneration gap between seeing veterans versus private patients from the general community or Defence members is now so significant that clinical providers are prioritising other clients over DVA referrals. In some cases, providers are refusing to accept clients with DVA white or gold cards because of the poor remuneration offered.

These concerns are confirmed and backed in by the Australian Medical Association. They announced over 18 months ago a survey of their members which found that almost 30 per cent of clinicians are no longer committed to treating veterans and are turning them away and that only 44 per cent of respondents would continue seeing veterans if the freeze continues.

As I said, this is a serious issue that I don't think the government is addressing in any way, shape or form. I don't think it is hearing the message from those people being impacted by this or from experts in the field—from the AMA or from Occupational Therapy Australia, which said:

While the Department of Veterans' Affairs … may report no decline in the total number of occupational therapists treating veterans, OTA is aware of the changing make-up of that number and the potential repercussions of this change.

The issue was also raised in the Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel by a number of submitters, including Dr Katelyn Kerr from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention. In Dr Kerr's submission, she writes:

However, DVA fees are significantly lower, and there has been a fee freeze for psychologists since 2014, creating a disincentive for experienced and skilled clinicians to see veterans. If DVA would match the fee schedule provided by Medibank Health Solutions or that recommended by the APS, this would increase the number of psychologists willing to see veterans and would increase the delivery of gold-standard interventions which have high success rates in treating mental disorders.

From 1 July 2017 to 23 May this year, DVA had received 8,331 applications for nonliability health care. While not all applications were for mental health treatment, we could expect the majority were seeking treatment for mental health conditions. According to the DVA's 2016-17 annual report, DVA currently services 165,071 veterans. Of course, this number is not reflective of all the veterans in Australia as DVA only track those who are current clients.

You can see from the evidence provided and from what the community is saying—I just want to put on the record tonight that I think the government has been way too slow in acting on this. That's why we're seeking tonight to put that amendment on the agenda: because our veterans deserve that. When the vote comes tonight, we have an opportunity to send a very clear message that this House notes with concern that the way that the government have been dragged kicking and screaming on the issue on frozen rebates is having a major impact on the veterans community.

I want to briefly touch on—I think of the member for Canberra and the particular work that she's done in the area alongside our defence team of the shadow minister for defence, the member for Corio, and the shadow minister for veterans' affairs—the significant announcement for the veterans community which we saw last week in Townsville. I saw some media reports about that announcement. I understand that the announcement was well received by the veterans community. If we are to be successful at the next election and if we are to be in government, Labor's vow to ADF personnel will be set in stone. In the future, if we are successful, a Shorten Labor government will put in place a formal agreement to ensure the nation's armed forces are fully supported during and after their service. It will be legislated with regular reporting to Australia on how Australia is supporting military personnel. I think that's an official promise that, hopefully, both sides of politics will deliver. I was delighted to see that the LNP in Queensland have matched that commitment.

Once again, we've seen the quality of a future Shorten Labor government, if we are successful, in making that firm commitment alongside the shadow minister for veterans affairs. It was only a short while ago that we saw the relevant portfolio elevated to cabinet, and I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for ensuring that veterans are given that strong voice at the cabinet table. And they can have no stronger voice than the shadow minister, who, I know, has been travelling the country, meeting with veterans' groups, meeting with our Defence Force personnel, to make sure that she hears and understands, and that's why you saw good policy announced in Townsville last week with the member for Herbert, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister.

I very much look forward to giving, if Labor were privileged to be in government, that commitment to make sure that we not only honour but, importantly, deliver on the commitments to those men and women who've served our great nation. With those few remarks, I commend the bill to the House and thank the minister and the shadow minister for the constructive way they have handled this debate tonight.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too want to talk about the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 and about the importance of standing by veterans. Having not had that privilege of serving, I do want to pay tribute to people who have served, and of course Deputy Speaker Hastie would be aware of that. The Veterans Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 22 August 2018. It reinstates an inadvertently removed provision to offset pension overpayment from bereavement payments in one streamlined transaction. Essentially, we want to stand by veterans and their families in the event of a bereavement to make it easier for people. People who have served our country are people we should be proud of. We spend a lot of time talking about the 102,000 Australians who have been killed in conflict. We probably don't spend quite enough time honouring those who have served and who, as a result of their service, have gone through some difficult times upon their returning.

I'm keen to add, while talking about this bill, an idea that's been put forward in my patch around assisting veterans upon their return. I live in a rural electorate. My electorate is 36 per cent of the state of Victoria, is an agricultural electorate and was historically set up by soldier settlements. Those soldier settlements were established after the First World War and also after the Second World War to stand by and to give opportunity to people who were returning from service, people who were sometimes traumatised. In those days, they didn't know fully about things such as post-traumatic stress syndrome. It saddens me to go to the cemetery and see the graves of young men who returned and who took their lives as a result of post-traumatic stress syndrome after the First World War and Second World War.

A Vietnam veteran came to me, a guy by the name of Ian Hastings, a grain grower, involved with farming systems. He is keen to take those who have served and see how they could be incorporated into the grain industry. One of the great things about working in the Australian grain industry is that they do get to drive big machines—harvesters, boon sprays—and use GPS technology. They are struggling to find people to work in those industries in more remote areas. And the idea has been put forward to me that we could once again, in some regards, have a soldier settlement scheme, taking people who are returning from their service, who are looking for gainful employment and incorporate them into those rural communities in rural Australia, particularly in our agriculture industry.

This would be a bipartisan position held across this parliament but I don't think we collectively are doing enough for our veterans. We are probably not standing by the people who have stood by Australia as fully as we should. When it comes to people who have served, we really should honour them in a greater sense. One of the great privileges as a member of parliament is the ability to do a military exchange. I know one of the members in the chamber here came with me at the start of last year to Afghanistan to see what our serving men and women serving were doing over there. What struck me was the calibre of the people we met.

Interestingly enough, as members of parliament we had to wear KingGee clothing. We don't get to wear uniform when we go over there. When I was sitting there in the mess hall having breakfast, one of the members of the Defence Force said to me, 'Who are you blokes?' I said, 'We're members of parliament.' And he goes, 'Oh, I thought you looked like a Jim's Mowing team.' He was very impressed that members of parliament would come over and see our serving troops. One of the questions I asked these people who were serving was how they are with their family time and what support services there are for their family. The very nature of the work and the hours, particularly with the difference in travel time, meant that those people weren't able to have contact with their families. So not only are they not as supported as they could be whilst serving; we also need to support them more fully upon their return.

The beauty of this bill is to try to address a small misdemeanour, essentially saying that, if someone has been overpaid but has also passed away, that can be rolled into one. I think it is important that we do more in this space. There are some great organisations, such as Soldier On and our traditional RSLs. I recently met with our RSL in Mildura. It was encouraging to me to see that a new generation of RSL were coming through. There was a guy there who was a young former soldier, and he was very active in the RSL and talking to our young children, particularly in our primary schools.

One of the things that I do want to raise—and something that still gripes me—is the book work and recording around veterans. I was approached by a young lady of 28 who lived in Donald, Victoria, in my electorate. Her husband, who was a similar age, had served two terms in Afghanistan. He was driving a water truck for the local council, but he needed a knee reconstruction. Unfortunately, he couldn't prove through records of the time of his service that the knee had been damaged in service. I've got to say, from the small time I spent in Afghanistan on that military exchange, walking around with the body armour on, it was pretty evident to me that would have had an impact on his knee. The knee reconstruction was going to cost $4,000. He was having difficulty, as a dad with two kids and a wife, having to climb up and down on a water truck for the council—and we wouldn't pay the $4,000.

I think that's to our shame. I think that's something where there really should have been no argument, and I would have thought that our department would put less of an onus on proof and have more of a fair-go type of attitude to that sort of situation. That's something I wanted to put on the record. I would like to see a more open attitude, I guess, towards supporting people who may have an injury as a result of their military service. To my way of thinking, that injury was a result of his military service. Deputy Speaker Hastie, you would of course be able to make more of a judgement call as to whether something like that would be a result of his military service. But, even if it wasn't, my view is that $4,000 for someone who has served our country so that they can get their leg patched up and so they can continue working is a pretty good investment, and we should have just covered it.

There are now over 30,000 soldiers who have returned from our Afghanistan engagement and the conflict in the Middle East region. That's quite a lot. We should be proud of them. Their service should be recognised on the memorials in our country towns. We march every year on Anzac Day to remember those who have served. I would like to see the names on those memorials updated to include not only those who have given their life but also those who have served. I think that's something we should encourage.

There's another thing I'm also keen to see. We have suburbs in new parts of our cities. If you look across the Wimmera Mallee you will see the memorials in the country towns, because of course in the First World War and the Second World War those towns were where the people were. But I believe we should also have new memorials, with the names of those who have served in Afghanistan, in the suburbs of cities. I think that's a challenge for our local councils in our new suburbs, that they should consider putting up memorials for those who have served in our Afghanistan conflict. It would be a great opportunity.

I commend this bill and I'm happy to have had a few moments to talk about the service of our Australian troops. I believe there is a lot of merit, particularly, in getting those country communities to welcome back and use the troops in their agricultural field. I will continue to talk about that with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I'm pleased that we are standing by those who have given so much for our country.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up I would like to thank all members who contributed to the debate on this bill, the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018. I would like to acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for the veteran community demonstrated by the opposition. The importance of family and the support they provide to both our serving personnel and veterans cannot be overestimated. Just moments ago the shadow minister and myself were joined by the opposition leader, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the shadow minister for foreign affairs at the Australian War Memorial, where we paid our respects to women who have served and women who have supported their loved ones who served at a very moving Last Post service conducted by Dr Brendan Nelson. It was a very fitting tribute, and it was good to see such a large crowd gathered for that event.

The bill before the House relates to how the Department of Veterans' Affairs administers bereavement payments. The government is committed to supporting veterans and their families. This bill will maintain the current practice for families when a beloved member dies. There are no changes to current entitlements for bereavement payment—they will remain exactly the same. This is a compassionate, sympathetic and unobtrusive response which avoids disturbing the family with additional interactions with the Department of Veterans' Affairs while they are grieving. When a veteran receiving a DVA income support payment dies, the surviving partner is entitled to a bereavement payment equivalent to 14 weeks of the veteran's income support payment. The bereavement payment is designed to assist the surviving partner with costs following the death of the partner and to provide a period to adjust their finances following the end of the deceased partner's payments. It is paid automatically once the family notifies DVA. Often the veteran will continue to receive payments after their death, as these payments continue until DVA has been notified. This results in an overpayment. This bill ensures the adjustment is made in a single administrative process, rather than through a number of formal debt recoveries. It avoids the need to recover debts from the deceased estate and it avoids disturbing the family during the grieving period. The bill will provide legislative certainty for past and future recoveries of pension overpayments from bereavement payment and will maintain the current discreet practice to respect the veterans' families mourning their loss.

I note the opposition's comments regarding veterans' access to health services more broadly across the nation. While I appreciate that there's been occasional commentary regarding health providers who don't accept DVA fees, I assure the House that this is not a systemwide problem. In Australia healthcare providers in private practice are free to choose how to run their business, including their opening hours, how much they'll charge and who they'll see. This of course includes whether or not to provide treatment under DVA's arrangements. As I told the House today, every year health providers across this country provide over 9.5 million medical and dental services to veterans and families. As a nation we can be rightly proud of the more than $11 billion provided by Australian taxpayers to support in the order of 290,000 veterans and their families.

While we occasionally hear anecdotal reports of issues with access or fees, the proportion of clients accessing health services who complained about these issues is very low—only 0.1 per cent in the last DVA annual report. Of course if a veteran does experience difficulties accessing services, DVA will identify alternative arrangements to ensure a veteran's care is maintained. This could include providing transport to alternative health providers or, where there is a specific clinical need, funding services above the DVA rate. DVA medical and allied health fees continue to represent the full payment to healthcare providers and are significantly higher than the fees payable under the Medicare scheme. The government is progressively reintroducing fee indexation for DVA medical and allied health services from 2017-18 and, as of 1 July this year, indexation has been reintroduced for GP attendances, bulk-billing incentives, specialist attendances and DVA's dental and allied health services. This has only been possible due to the strong economic management of the coalition government.

In conclusion, I again thank members opposite and those on this side of the chamber for their support for the Veterans' Entitlement Amendment Bill 2018. As a nation, we are rightly proud of the service provided by our men and women in uniform. It is a matter of fact, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie—and you, as someone who has served, would know this more than others—that in the order of 80,000 to 85,000 Australians put on the uniform and serve in the permanent or reserve ADF. For those of us who haven't put on the uniform and don't serve in that capacity, as a grateful nation we are indebted to those who serve. Our task is to make sure they are supported while they are serving but also once their service ends. The transition from the Australian Defence Force to civilian life is not always easy. In your case, Deputy Speaker Hastie, it's a quite unusual path that you've chosen to take in joining us here in the House of Representatives. But I congratulate you on your own service but also for the path you've taken in transition.

As a government, we are keen to work across party political lines to ensure that the veterans and their families are well supported both now and into the future. I've had many briefings with the shadow minister and appreciated her forthright input into policy development, and I'm sure I'll get more of that forthright input in the weeks and months ahead. In that spirit of bipartisanship, I must stress that many members, from both sides of the House, come to me raising issues on specific areas of concern for veterans and, wherever possible, I will work constructively to make sure we get an outcome which is in the interests of the veterans and their families. I commend this bill.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Kingston has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Kingston be agreed to.