Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, and I move:

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 criticises the Government for failing to:

(1) address the high rates of suicide and mental health conditions among current and former Australian Defence Force personnel, as evidenced by the latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data; and

(2) establish a full and independent Royal Commission into veteran suicide, with broad terms of reference, and a clear start and end date".

At the outset, I want to say that Labor recognises the unique nature of military service, the sacrifice of current and former ADF members and their families and the outstanding contribution they make to our nation. We are committed to supporting our ADF members and veterans during their service, in transitioning from service and in their lives beyond service. For our part, Labor takes the issue of defence and veteran suicide very seriously. This is why we came out in support of a royal commission into veteran suicide in December last year.

The government's announcement in February of a new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, only after widespread calls from veterans and sections of the media for a royal commission, is disappointing. Despite the overwhelming support for a royal commission the Prime Minister stubbornly refused to listen to the veterans community and establish a royal commission earlier this year. In response, Labor cautiously welcomed the announcement of a national commissioner as a step forward because, as we said at the time, we didn't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. On that basis, Labor will not be opposing these bills in the House. But we reserve our position until we see the outcome of the Senate inquiry into these bills.

Like so many in the veterans community, we have serious concerns about the proposed national commissioner. The fact is that, since the government's initial announcements, we and many parents and family members whose sons and daughters tragically have taken their own lives after long battles with the Department of Veterans' Affairs have become increasingly convinced that the national commissioner won't be better than a royal commission as the government has claimed. The government has a lot of work to do to convince us and many in the veterans and wider community that they are genuine in tackling this issue. A growing concern shared by many veterans and families is that this is simply a marketing exercise—an announcement, not a plan to tackle the issue. It won't accomplish what a royal commission would because it lacks the resources, the scope, the powers and, in particular, the independence from government to ask the difficult questions.

Labor's position is that only a full royal commission, with a clear start and end date, will achieve this. Otherwise, the national commissioner just creates yet another layer of bureaucracy which will achieve very little. But we know that the devil is in the detail, so we've studied the legislation and we've been consulting widely to hear from stakeholders and experts. We want to scrutinise it thoroughly to see if the proposal will have the powers of a royal commission. This is why we supported referring the bills to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee inquiry. We've got concerns about the proposal and believe only a thorough and comprehensive inquiry will address these.

The government has a trust deficit with the veterans community. Together, these issues which I'm about to elaborate upon really cause the veterans community to have grave concern about the government's real intention here, and whether this is an actual plan to address these issues and not just a marketing exercise. There are four issues I want to address that encompass part of the amendments that I have moved. The first issue is the DFRDB issue. The government announced that they would have an inquiry by the Commonwealth Ombudsman as a result of requests by the veterans community into the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme—an independent investigation. This has bedevilled and vexed many in the veterans community and caused tremendous concern and angst. The government eventually announced the outcome of the inquiry. We welcomed the government's apology to veterans. We welcomed the fact that the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, which manages the DFRDB scheme, had accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation to improve advice to and communication with members. The Ombudsman found that there were false expectations of a more generous long-term outcome, and this constituted defective administration by Defence. We then expected the government to engage with the veterans community, because we know that people who suffer financial loss can apply for compensation through the government's Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration. It's a well-known fact. We expected the government to engage with the veterans community in relation to that. We expected applications to come out of the government's engagement with the veterans community. Too little has been done, and this has caused concern and real worry in the veterans community.

The second issue is the announcement the government made in March last year, before the last election, that they would examine, at the request of so many totally and permanently incapacitated veterans, the compensation they were paid as income—the special rate pension. Those veterans felt it wasn't benchmarked properly and that its real purchasing power was declining. The government announced that there would be an inquiry conducted by David Tune in relation to that issue. We provided bipartisan support. The government received the report of that review in August last year and sat on the report, releasing it just after the budget. I can't count the number of times I've spoken to people in the veterans community, in speaking at conferences and congresses of the TPI community, about the anxiety caused by the government's failure in this respect.

In the end, in the budget, what has the government done? As I said, the government released the outcome of the review just after the budget. In the budget, there's a little bit extra help for those TPI veterans who are renting. Up to 20 per cent of TPI veterans will receive some rental assistance, far short of what was expected. This has caused a trust deficit amongst veterans communities, and TPI veterans have been very vocal about it.

The third issue is the government's much-heralded national Veteran Health and Wellbeing Strategy. The minister stood over there and announced that they would have that wellbeing and health strategy, which is the very subject of these bills and the amendment today, by the end of last year. That came and went—pre bushfires, pre pandemic. Eventually, on 15 May this year, we discovered the strategy had been put up on the website. There were blank pages, a few pictures, a litany of policies and programs which were already being rolled out—really a bit of a damp squib of a strategy and a policy. The veterans community was very underwhelmed by it.

The fourth issue, which again is the subject of these bills, was the Productivity Commission report, which the government received in the middle of last year, releasing it on 2 July last year. There were 69 recommendations. There were some we came out quite strongly against pretty well from the start—for example, the idea of abolishing the gold card for veterans and their families. We straightaway said we didn't support it. In addition, there was the idea to create and privatise the Veteran Services Commission that the PC had recommended in its interim report. We said we wouldn't support that. We asked questions in this forum, including in question time, consideration in detail and Senate estimates, about what the government's intention was.

Remember, the government released this report on 2 July last year. The government responded to that report in the budget. And what did they say? There's an interim response. There's 69 recommendations by the Productivity Commission. The government responded to only 25 of those and we have no idea when the government's eventually going to respond to the rest. In the budget there was a bit more support for counselling and mental health services—for increased fees for mental health services like psychology and psychiatry. We welcome that. I commended the government for it. But there was nothing in terms of extra support for physiotherapy or occupational therapy. It's not just mental health; mental health goes hand in glove with physical health, and the government did nothing in the budget in relation to that.

So you can see there's a real trust deficit when it comes to the government on these issues, and veterans feel left out and left behind accordingly. As I said as I moved this second reading amendment criticising the government in relation to this issue, on 9 October we saw the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures on ADF personnel and veteran suicide released. They show that our veterans urgently need help. There needs to be a royal commission into this painful and ongoing scourge. The data showed that there were 33 deaths by suicide amongst serving and ex-serving ADF personnel in 2018; 465 suicides between 2001 and 2018. That's about 10 times more deaths by suicide than there were combat deaths over the same period.

The sobering reality is that many veterans believe the actual suicide rate is much higher. Anecdotally, we lose around one veteran a week, at least, to suicide. That's because the official figures may not pick up that someone was an ADF member; or there may be other factors involved, such as a vehicle accident that masks the true nature of what has happened—not to mention the number of veterans who try and take their lives each year or who suffer mental health issues including suicidal ideation.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report shows that male veterans are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide than men in the community generally, while the rate of suicide amongst ex-serving women is twice the general female population. Alarmingly, the research shows that ex-serving men had a 66 per cent higher suicide rate when they were discharged for medical reasons compared to men who were discharged voluntarily.

This update is a wake-up call and yet another report in a very, very long line of reports which now go back decades. We're losing the war when it comes to saving our current and former Defence personnel. The data sadly backs up the experience of veterans like former special forces officer Major Heston Russell, who I spoke with recently. Major Russell told me that he'd lost more men—more of his mates—to suicide than in four deployments to Afghanistan. It shows we need to do a lot more to support our ex-serving men and women and prepare them for life after the military through assistance with mental health and wellbeing, employment and housing. It highlights why we urgently need a royal commission into veteran suicide to get to the bottom of these tragic deaths.

The evidence is overwhelming, and it's not getting any better. Labor broadly welcomed the Morrison government's announcement of a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention earlier this year. It's just a small step forward, notwithstanding the pleas of Julie-Ann Finney and parents of veterans for a full royal commission into veteran suicide. But how has it taken the Morrison government eight months from making that announcement to us debating this today in the House? How serious can they have been that it is now eight months later and we're having a debate today on this topic?

Further, we're disappointed that the Attorney-General rushed ahead—strangely enough, despite the fact that we're having a debate eight months later—and appointed an interim national commissioner on 30 September, when the initial consultation process had only just concluded and well before the parliament had a chance to even vote on the enabling legislation. It is interesting that the announcement was made late in the day—under the cover of dark, if you want to avoid scrutiny—suggesting the government knew that there were issues with the process and it wouldn't go down well with the veteran community. It was a pretty sneaky thing for the government to do, actually. While Labor has no personal criticism of the interim national commissioner, Dr Bernadette Boss, who was a magistrate and a coroner, and a brigadier in the Army Reserve, we are concerned that the government made certain assurances that they wouldn't appoint someone with a military background. It's another act of bad faith with veterans. We fear that Dr Boss, as an Army officer, could have a conflict of interest that would open the office to perceptions of institutional bias towards Defence, undermining trust in the office. It confirms our suspicion that the new position will not have the independence of powers to really get to the bottom of veterans' suicide in the way that a royal commission with broad terms of reference could.

You might have thought that maybe a former High Court judge, a Supreme Court judge or a Federal Court judge, even someone with experience in running royal commissions or someone who has presided as a judge for a very long time—independence, fresh eyes—would have been a more appropriate appointment. I'm very concerned that the commissioner could end up being a glorified federal coroner, which is essentially redundant when we know that state and territory coroners, with experience, police resources, pathology resources and counselling resources all have expertise to investigate veterans' suicide, and that's what happens now. What's more, the so-called independent review into past suicides that the interim national commissioner is undertaking is basically an in-house desktop review. It is nothing like a royal commission. For a start, the review's terms of reference are fairly narrow—for example, the review will only cover deaths that occurred between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2018. That excludes David Finney, for one, who passed away in 2019. His mother, Julie-Ann Finney, was one of the faces of the campaign for a royal commission into veterans' suicide. It is another slap in the face and an act of bad faith with veterans and their families. Furthermore, you have to question the interim national commissioner's capacity to adequately investigate 456 or more deaths from 2001 to 2018 and produce an interim report after 12 months and a final report after 18 months as has been announced. I'm not making that up. Those time frames are what the government has set. To put that into perspective, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody involved four commissioners, each with two teams, who investigated 200 deaths over four years from 1987 to 1991. Clearly, this in-house, watered down review will not have the standing of a properly constituted royal commission, and it's doubtful whether it can be done properly.

Not only has the process behind the national commissioner been suspect, but in substance it's deeply flawed as well. The government has made much of the new body being a rolling royal commission, and bigger and better than a royal commission. They're saying it would be a permanent and enduring voice to parliament. It seems this is okay when it comes to veterans but not when it comes to our First Nations people. The inconsistency and hypocrisy of this—that this government will not accept a voice to parliament for Australia's First People but will go ahead with this idea of a so-called voice to parliament—will not go unnoticed by Australia's First People.

That something is enduring doesn't make it inherently superior, particularly if it's not properly informed or constituted from the beginning. It's fairly clear that this standing body will not have the powers of a royal commission as the government is claiming. A number of veterans, academics and legal experts we've consulted have advised us that a royal commission with broad terms of references and with a clear start and end date is needed, and that is world-best practice. As one submission to the government's consultation put it:

… a Royal Commission which by definition is the highest form of inquiry on a matter of public importance. In addition to having wider and more significant powers ( for instance to refer matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions ) , the benefit of a Royal Commission is that it definitively establishes the facts at a point in time—

and makes a series of considered recommendations that are very hard for governments to ignore.

In contrast, the proposed national commissioner model is in and of itself unproven and untested. It could roll on for many years doing its check-ins and its check-ups and lodge annual reports without a guarantee of meaningful change and action to prevent defence and veteran suicide. There is no guarantee of systemic change, merely, at best, a guarantee of individual case reviews, more likely to be desktop as it's already been happening. This is unsatisfactory and unacceptable. It almost implies there's no expectation of success or finding solutions to prevent these tragic and needless deaths.

The logical conclusion is that a royal commission should precede any permanent standing statutory body and that the body should be informed by the strong and definitive recommendations of a royal commission. Indeed, a royal commission could recommend a standing permanent capability be established to oversee ongoing reforms to prevent veteran suicide in the future, possibly even along the lines of a better version of a national commissioner. A good example of this is the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service or the Wood royal commission on police corruption, which led to the establishment of a standing police integrity commission. As it stands, the proposal in these bills puts the cart before the horse—and a pretty dodgy looking cart at that.

Following on, the government has described the national commissioner as has having powers broadly equivalent to a royal commission, and some powers in the legislation are closely modelled on equivalent powers under the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Having widely considered legal matters on this issue with experts, Labor's concerned only a royal commission, for example, would have unambiguous powers to hold public hearings, summon witnesses, compel the production of evidence, pursue disciplinary proceedings and, crucially, even refer charges of criminal or official misconduct to appropriate authorities and make recommendations for compensation. As such, the bills may try to mimic royal-commission-like powers, but there's an inherent structural or design flaw in that the national commissioner will effectively be a government official sitting and working alongside other government officials in the Attorney-General's portfolio. This means they can be hired and fired by the government at any time and are much less likely to exercise those powers to hold Defence, DVA and other agencies to a serious level of scrutiny for their roles in defence and veteran suicide and. As it will have a budget of about $30 million, less than half of an average royal commission, Labor fears the national commissioner will not be properly resourced to do its job.

I want to touch on one other aspect we've received some feedback on. Many veterans and families are deeply cynical that the proposals in these bills represent an attempt by the government to try to limit scrutiny and criticism of it and its agencies, to protect these institutions. Amongst some in the veterans community there is almost a complete lack of trust and confidence in the government and departments like defence and even veterans' affairs. These bills refer to the national commissioner as taking a 'trauma-informed and restorative approach' to their work and in particular having a preference to hold private meetings with families of suicide victims, ostensibly out of respect for them. Some are concerned this is a code for wanting to silence them behind closed doors when, in fact, many families actually want to have a public platform to tell their stories in order to seek restorative justice. As one researcher and veteran I've spoken to put it: 'For some veterans false promises and a lack of transparency and accountability will simply compound trauma, which does nothing to decrease the trust deficit between veterans and the ADF, the department and the DVA.' This person noticed that this in turn can create further distress, which in turn may lead to self-harm and even suicide. You only have to look to the Productivity Commission report from the middle of last year to see that's true.

We know that only a royal commission will provide closure, healing and restorative justice for the defence and veterans community. In other areas such as mental health, institutional child sexual abuse, aged care and disability services we've seen the benefits of royal commissions. Why not a royal commission into veterans and defence suicides? Importantly, it would provide an opportunity for us as a community to listen to the parents and families of veterans who have had their lives taken, and assure these people in a very public way that we're doing everything we possibly can to prevent these tragic deaths from happening in the future. The Prime Minister should show faith in veterans and their families and establish a royal commission, so we can get to the bottom of veteran suicide and deliver real accountability and justice for the families once and for all. They deserve nothing less than a royal commission.

In closing, we have a special obligation to help our veterans. We train them, we ask them to put their lives at risk for us, yet we find too many of them slipping through the cracks, not getting the support they deserve and they need, and their families are suffering as a result of what's happening. In some cases the individual veterans tragically have taken their lives, while others are permanently scarred and damaged. The evidence is overwhelming, the government must do better. They must address veterans' mental health and suicide, which is precisely why I'm moving the second reading amendments and raising concern about the government's proposed approach in this area.

We will continue to engage with the veterans community and stakeholders on these bills. We've encouraged people to have their say on the legislation in the current Senate inquiry, which reports back by 30 November this year. We will come to a final position on the legislation in the Senate once we've seen the outcome of these inquiries. But I say to the government: do the right thing; reconsider your position; don't procrastinate any longer; call a royal commission, give it strong powers, give it broad terms of reference; do the right thing by Julie-Ann, and so many other parents who have suffered so tragically as a result of the needless deaths of their sons and daughters.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment moved by the shadow minister and I reserve my right to speak.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question is that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blair has moved as an amendment that all the words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise today to support the substantive bill before us that the government is proposing, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020. Today is national headspace Day. Headspace is a support program, of course, for the mental health of our national young people. Yesterday, I reflected on just what a tough year it has been with facing the COVID pandemic and now the COVID recession. Young people, in particular, have felt the sting of job losses, family upheaval and social change. So it's appropriate then that we consider this bill today because young people in our armed forces are not immune from this mental health challenge or distress. As a society we view them, the men and women of our ADF, as some of the toughest operators around. They are our best and brightest, the strongest among us, those who have dedicated themselves to protect us and our nation. But we must not neglect to protect and support them in that process because serving or retired personnel are not immune from mental health challenges, just like the rest of us. And just as they serve and protect our nation we have a duty to support and assist them.

There are other coalition colleagues within the party room who will speak with very poignant and firsthand knowledge of what it is like to serve in the ADF and even in combat. The member for Braddon, the member for Herbert and the member for Stirling, along with others on this side of the House and on the other side as well, have served their country in the ADF. I want to thank them at this point in the speech for their service and to thank all current and retired ADF personnel likewise for their service to our nation.

I don't have the benefit of that firsthand experience as I approach this issue. I haven't served in the ADF myself. But I do represent the electorate of Ryan, and I know many in the electorate of Ryan have this firsthand experience of serving. We are home to the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, one of the largest bases in the nation. The land was acquired for military use in 1908 as a training camp and rifle artillery range. It has been a major military defence establishment from 1960 onwards and it's home to the 7th Brigade. You don't have that kind of long-established military history in your electorate without there being many, many serving and retired defence families within the electorate. So I have seen first hand—I have been able to go on the barracks and I have seen them serving overseas as well—the hard work of the men and women of our ADF, the sacrifices that they make to serve our nation and, just as importantly, the sacrifices their families make so that those individuals can serve our nation.

I've also spoken with them first hand about the struggle that they sometimes face as they leave the service and transition to life and work as a civilian. I will touch a little bit more on that shortly. Every year too many Australians are taken from us by suicide. Sadly, our ADF personnel and veterans are not immune, but it's important in the context of the substantive bill in front of us to understand the statistics. The latest statistics paint a very challenging picture. Data recently released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows 33 deaths by suicide in 2018. Since 2001 there have been over 450 deaths by suicide in the defence and veteran community. One suicide is too many.

As a government we have made it a priority to address these figures, to provide the support necessary before somebody becomes one of these statistics, before families are dealing with the loss of a dear loved one. In 2017 the Morrison government expanded access to free mental health treatment to include any mental health condition regardless of whether or not the condition was linked to a veteran's service. That is uncapped funding. Where there is a need within the veteran community it will be met. We have ensured veterans can access financial support where they have a compensation claim for a mental health condition being processed by the DVA. We have made progress in ensuring ADF members have the support to succeed in civilian employment, and we are highlighting and celebrating the skills and experience that previously serving ADF members bring to our civilian workforce.

The recent 2020 budget prioritised further investment in mental health, transition and employment support, providing more than $100 million for a one-off increase to the fees paid to psychiatrists, allied mental health workers, social workers and community nursing providers. That's money to train psychiatry registrars in veteran and military mental health, to provide GP led care and coordination for veterans with a mental health condition where it is service related and to expand the Open Arms veterans and families counselling, community and peer support program.

Most importantly, we have improved the transition process from defence, making support needs based, improving the communication between DVA and defence and ensuring those most at risk have the support they need when they need it. The transition focus is why the Morrison government is establishing the Joint Transition Authority announced in the 2020 budget—to ensure all transition services are working together for the best possible outcome for ADF members, veterans and their families. The transition authority will be an important tool, as it is one of the most consistent pieces of feedback I have received from veterans in the Ryan community.

With such a large serving ADF population in the Ryan electorate, the transition to civilian life is spoken about often, sometimes with enormous concern and trepidation. Finding a way to transition their technical skills to general community use, understanding what additional training they will need to get into the roles they want to get into, working out how to appeal to employers and how to demonstrate the value of their life skills and leadership qualities in a civilian context—these things have all been expressed to me directly by ADF personnel and veterans in the Ryan community. Approximately 6,000 ADF members will transition each year, and for their families this can be a time of great upheaval and uncertainty. A failure to transition successfully can be a leading cause of the mental health challenges that veterans face, so I'm pleased the Morrison government has put a spotlight on this particular aspect.

There is more that we can do, and it lies in the substantive bill in front of us. On 5 February 2020 the Prime Minister announced that the Australian government would establish a new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention to inquire into the deaths by suicide of serving and former ADF members. This legislation formally creates the national commissioner position and sets out the national commissioner's functions and powers. The national commissioner will be independent of government, being appointed by the Governor-General, and will have full discretion in the way their inquiries are conducted. The national commissioner will report to the Australian parliament directly through the Annual veteran and defence suicide death report, and they can provide additional reports in between those annual reports as they deem necessary.

The Australian government will be required to provide an annual response to the national commissioner's report. This will provide an ongoing and rolling focus from the government but also publicly highlight what is going on to address the national commissioner's concerns. The national commissioner will then have an ongoing role in monitoring the implementation of the recommendations they make. The work of the commissioner will help us to understand the factors and systemic issues that may contribute to and increase suicide risk and provide recommendations to improve further prevention efforts. This will improve our understanding, allow us to reform the system where it needs to be reformed and provide the right help to all those who need it.

The national commissioner will have powers broadly equivalent to those of a royal commissioner, but it will be a permanent office that can continually monitor the implementation of its own recommendations to ensure long-term solutions are delivered. The commissioner will also be able to examine new issues that may arise over time. The member for Blair, who spoke previously, sees that as a negative. We see it very much as a positive. The national commissioner's ability to be ever-present, to have a rolling focus, will mean that suicide and its risk factors aren't just considered at a moment of time. The commissioner will have ongoing jurisdiction to make sure systemic change happens in the way they have recommended themselves. There won't be a separate royal commission making recommendations, with somebody else implementing them perhaps not in the way that was originally intended; the person recommending systemic change will then oversee it in the way they intended it to be.

When we say the national commissioner and their office will be given relevant powers equivalent to those of a royal commission, what exactly do we mean? This is important. They will undertake wide-ranging inquiries relevant to their role and hear from any relevant parties, be they veterans themselves or their families. They can conduct public and private hearings, compel the production of evidence and summon witnesses. The powers of the national commissioner and their office also will be equivalent to those of a contemporary coronial office. They include overseeing the investigation of all individual veteran and defence suicides, reporting their findings and making recommendations. Again, the member for Blair sees the conducting of public and private hearings as a weakness. We don't. Veterans and their families need that option. Some will want the public forum—absolutely the member for Blair is right. Some of them will want their stories publicly told, and they will have that option, but some won't. We would not want the situation where these forums are only public and those who don't want their views expressed publicly then choose not to take up the option. So the veterans' families will have the option to pursue the mechanism and participate in the mechanism in the way of their choosing.

The role, functions and independence of the national commissioner is important too. They will conduct an independent inquiry into past veteran and defence suicides since 2001, with the ability to consider older deaths if necessary; they can inquire into all future suspected and confirmed veteran suicide; they can identify systemic issues, trends and risk factors; they can undertake their own investigations as they so choose if there are systemic factors that they would like to explore further; they can make recommendations to the government and parliament; they can make findings in relation to individual veteran and defence suicides; of course, they will then have the ongoing monitoring; and then there is the requirement to report to parliament and for parliament to respond.

As with a royal commission, the bill will enable families and individuals the opportunity to engage in the way that they choose. Families can make a submission, they can meet with the national commissioner or their staff, and they can provide formal evidence to the inquiry, such as through a witness statement or through participating in a public or private hearing. It is intended there will also be other informal ways for families to engage with the national commissioner, including through meetings and round tables. Affected families and veterans will have the opportunity to share their personal stories and insights to inform the important work of the national commissioner. Participation of families will of course be voluntary and families will be supported to engage with the national commissioner in the way that they want to engage, whether it's in private or whether it is publicly. Legal assistance will also be available to the families. The Morrison government is providing $42.7 million over five years to establish and operate this national commissioner, including a legal assistance scheme. These costs include the one-off funding to review historical ADF member and veterans deaths by suicide.

We know there is no single solution to this complex issue, and suicide prevention deserves our enduring focus. The bill before us today, the substantive bill, provides the establishment of a permanent, dedicated commissioner who is focused on making inquiries and hearing from families to prevent future suicides. The commissioner will provide that enduring focus. I also want to assure defence and veterans' families that help is available now and can make a difference. If discussions about this topic today in the parliament have caused you or your family any distress, any current serving members can access support through the local garrison's health centre or by contacting the all-hours support line. They can contact Open Arms, the veterans and families counselling service, for support, and those who wish to remain anonymous can contact Safe Zone Support. This is free and anonymous.

Together, this bill and the national commissioner, and we as a community, can tackle the scourge of suicide in our defence and veteran community and ensure we support and serve them just as they have supported and served us.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Official figures show that 33 serving personnel or veterans took their lives in 2018. Those same official statistics show 465 Australians who had worn our uniform or were still wearing our uniform took their lives between 2001 and 2018. If anything, those statistics underestimate the real figure—of that we can be certain. They are minimum figures. That's why this debate is so important, behind this legislation to create a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, something that was announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year. It was announced after a concerted campaign by the families of veterans, supported very strongly by media outlets, including the Daily Telegraph in my city of Sydney. It was a government responding, belatedly, to public pressure, but it was also a government which, once again, had an inadequate response.

When the government made the announcement, they implied that this was what the community were campaigning for. Indeed, they contacted advocates like Julie-Ann Finney and told her that that was the case. In this government's style—prioritising media advertising and spin—they implied that this was what they were calling for. The reason my colleague the member for Blair has moved an amendment to this legislation is that the response of those advocates, many of whom have been grieving loved ones for a long period of time, was support when they got the call from the Prime Minister's office, going to confusion when they first looked at the detail, to anger when they actually looked at the substance of what this government was proposing, as included in this bill.

We should be discussing here the process of the royal commission—a royal commission that was required to get to the bottom of so many issues. We have royal commissions at the moment into aged care and into disability care. They are very much issues that we on this side of the chamber support and have called for. But we also made the considered decision—the considered decision—to call for a royal commission into veteran suicides. When you are losing more men and women to suicide than you are losing on the field of battle, that is something that requires a response. When you are losing many more times that, then it absolutely demands a response, and it demands the strongest response. It demands a royal commission. That's what Julie-Ann Finney and veterans organisations have called for. That's why the shadow minister and people like the member for Solomon and others with that experience advised me very strongly that this was something that we should call for, and we didn't call for it lightly. I was convinced by them but also by the families. Julie-Ann Finney is a very strong advocate, a strong and proud woman from Adelaide who has campaigned so strongly because of her loss, her lack of understanding of the details of what happened with the loss of her son. And families are entitled to get those answers and to have that detailed examination that only a royal commission can bring. But of course it isn't just about analysing the past, as important as that is. It's because if we don't understand how we got to these circumstances we will have no hope of moving forward in the future. This is not an academic exercise we are seeking here. This is an exercise in giving the respect that those who bravely serve us in uniform deserve and that their families deserve. It's about honouring them.

A royal commission wouldn't exclude the possibility of a bill such as this, but it would avoid the contortions that are involved in the appointment of an interim national commissioner before this legislation has even been adopted. We have grave doubts about the independence of the interim commissioner and whether she will be able to answer the questions it is so important that we answer. We're discussing a bill that does not enjoy the support of the entire veteran community, including those whose loved ones have been a part of the terrible tragedy of suicide. We must listen carefully to the families who have lost veteran sons and daughters and ensure that the legislation which is ultimately adopted is owned and trusted by all. That is why we'll give consideration to the Senate processes that will be established, before we determine a final position on this legislation.

I don't understand, frankly, why the Prime Minister didn't just adopt a position of support for a royal commission. I don't get it. I know that there are advocates on both sides. The member for Herbert, I know, has been very engaged on these issues as well. He is very sincere in his advocacy for families, and he's here in the chamber for this debate. But with this Prime Minister it seems that if there's a proposal or an idea from anyone but him then it's a bad idea. He can't just embrace the ideas and the capacity of this parliament, let alone the capacity of the great Australian nation.

We've seen this sort of process before. It's like you want to get to the end of a road but you've got to go down every cul-de-sac to get there. We saw it with Teddy Sheean. We had an independent recommendation that he be given a VC, and that was rejected by the Prime Minister and rejected by the defence minister. The campaign went on, with a broad consensus from anyone who looked at the extraordinary contribution of this brave 18-year-old Tasmanian who went to his certain death as a conscious decision to save others who were in the water, tying himself to a gun to shoot at those Japanese fighter planes. Then there was a review of the review to do what everyone knew was going to be the end point, but it was at a cost of $90,000, at a cost of delay and at a cost of making it a political issue when it shouldn't have been.

I predict a similar path here. I say that there will be a royal commission. There will be a royal commission formed by an incoming Labor government if this government doesn't do it this term. It requires nothing less. This Prime Minister just seems incapable of doing anything other than looking for a detour. Just like the Teddy Sheean issue, this proposal before us today has the Prime Minister's fingerprints all over it. There are reports that the Prime Minister found the idea of a royal commission into veteran suicide too unpalatable and that he wanted to put a more positive spin on the issue rather than get to the heart of why we have this absolute crisis.

You only have to look at the testimony of Departments of Veterans' Affairs officials at Senate estimates earlier this year. They revealed that, despite the groundswell of support for a royal commission into veteran suicide, the government was determined to avoid one at all costs. It's pretty clear that the government wanted to avoid the cost of a royal commission in favour of a cheaper in-house approach, which is what this legislation is before us today. But for a government that's racked up $1 trillion of debt—racked up $98 billion of new spending with no saves, except for the Australian National Audit Office, which was cut in the budget of this month for doing its job—to be concerned about the difference of an in-house operation and a royal commission just shows a complete lack of priorities. This will deny justice that has been called for, from the families of veterans. The problem is that, because this was announced in its usual style—a front page splash with no-one told in advance and no comments sought except for supportive ones—it breaks down the trust that's there. I directly sat down with family members, as has the member for Blair, our shadow minister on this. It is unfortunate that that trust has been broken down so much, because people like Julie-Ann Finney show such quiet dignity in the way they've gone about these issues.

The government has been in such a hurry to avoid a royal commission that the national commissioner was to be appointed even before there was legislation. It's just extraordinary. It's unwise. We will, therefore, subject this legislation to the scrutiny that is required. I am very disappointed that we don't have a bipartisan position on this. I accept that everyone would consider that one loss is one loss too many. We do need to listen to the families of these veterans who've lost their lives, and these families are saying they want, and in my view they deserve, a royal commission—nothing less.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the central social policy targets of the Morrison government is that Australia has zero suicides. It's a bold target—probably the most bold of all of our social policy targets—that indicates how much we value human life and how important it is that we deal properly with this issue. In order to get us towards that position of zero suicides the government is doing a range of very important things, including a record $5.7 billion investment in mental health and suicide prevention in this year alone; doubling the number of appointments that are Medicare funded that people can take with a psychologist; a boost for the way back program, which in my view targets those people who are most at risk, that is those people who have made an attempt on their own life. It's such an important program because we know exactly who those people are and we know where they are. It's important that we provide services to them because if we do that's our best chance of reducing the target.

Sadly, in the most recent year for which we have statistics 3,046 Australians died by suicide, that's eight people every single day. One of the things that I've seen in my time working in this public policy area, as the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, is that there is a very important development that is happening in public policy thinking in this space, and that is that when you look at those who die by suicide there are certain groups that are overrepresented and those groups require a bespoke approach. I think about those tragic suicides that occurred in the Kimberley and the government's response of a particular bespoke package in the Kimberley to deal with suicide prevention to ensure that that doesn't happen again. Today we are discussing a bill that deals with the bespoke approach to deal with veterans. I suspect we will see more of these bespoke approaches, and I applaud that particular approach to dealing with suicide generally.

The way we treat our veterans says a lot about us as a country. It says a lot about us in two respects. Firstly, it says that we put a premium on the sacrifice and service of people who are prepared to lay down their lives to defend our way of life. Secondly, by properly treating those who've served we encourage others to put their hands up to serve, and we were to do otherwise we would actually actively discourage people from taking on that service. The culture of service in the Defence Force in this country is fundamental to the fabric of our identity. We have a growing number of veterans who are now continuing their service in this place. There are others like myself who are the grandsons and great grandsons of veterans who are inspired by their family's service in the ADF to serve in this place as well. So I think that this response, through the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide, is a great demonstration of the government understanding and underscoring the values of Australians and the values that we place on veterans and those who are prepared to serve.

Sadly, the latest reports from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on suicide amongst serving and ex-serving ADF personnel don't paint a pretty picture. Looking at the rolling three year averages we see it's ex-service people, rather than serving members, who are most at risk of suicide. While the suicide rate is lower for people who are serving, including in the Reserves, it's higher for those who have been discharged and particularly high for those who are discharged for medical reasons. Ex-serving women are more than twice as likely to die by suicide than the average for the Australian population. It is for these reasons that bespoke support is needed. Unique services and supports are needed because of the unique situations we ask our ADF personnel to be in. For those of us who haven't served we cannot properly imagine what it is like to be in those situations of life or death, the regimented nature of service life and then suddenly to be put back into civilian life. We who haven't been there can't truly imagine what that is like. As a result of people's service, and as a result of the things people have seen and been asked to do, many people have ongoing health needs due to physical or mental injury. The change and the adjustment back to civilian life can be overwhelming for people.

In my work as a member of parliament, particularly a member of parliament interested in suicide prevention, over the last few years I have had the privilege of meeting a remarkable young woman called Charlotte Officer who came to my office as part of the Macquarie University PACE Program. Charlotte was then studying a degree that's helped prepare her to now study a medical degree. She came to do some work on the history of mental health responses to Australia, in particular looking at the role in which the funding of the medical system helps drive particular outcomes in relation to mental health and suicide prevention.

Charlotte was motivated to do this work because she is the sister of a veteran and the partner of a veteran. Charlotte's brother, Marshall Officer, spent six years in the infantry. He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2014-15 as part of the Force Protection Element-2, and he spent a year as an instructor for the School of Infantry in Singleton. Marshall and two of the friends he served with in Afghanistan, Dan Hunt, Charlotte's partner, and Nathan Barnes, have a company called Anvil Training and Development, which serves veterans by providing them with learning opportunities, physical training and mental health support. Dan spent five years in the infantry and Nathan served for over seven years.

As Charlotte said to me when she wrote to me recently: 'When my brother left defence I witnessed him try to transition to civilian life. I watched him work hard to reintegrate and appreciate how his life would now be difference and how his experiences in defence impacted his life. I watched the highs and the lows and throughout all of this he was supported by the other veterans he had served with.' Charlotte became passionate about veteran mental health and suicide because of Marshall's work as a soldier. She said—and this is beautiful: 'Not only is Marshall my big brother and my hero; he's one of my closest friends. The longer he served the more I became conscious of how his experiences had shaped him.'

Charlotte's currently studying a postgraduate Doctor of Medicine with a hope to specialise as a general practitioner with a subspecialty in mental health, where she wants to work with veterans. She's motivated to do her work because of her family experience and because of her experience with her partner. Both Charlotte and Marshall, when I met with them, emphasised to me the need to ensure that services that are provided for veterans work for veterans, and this means listening. As Charlotte said, 'It's important to spend time speaking with veterans about what works and what doesn't work and with educated medical practitioners and create change and awareness in this space.'

I think the defence and veteran suicide prevention commissioner will do exactly that on behalf of all of us. This initiative of the defence and veteran suicide commissioner builds on a number of things we have already been doing. In 2017 we expanded access to free health mental health treatment to include any mental health condition, regardless of whether or not the condition is linked to a veteran's service. This now has uncapped funding so that when there is a need that very same need is met.

We're doing more to help people build a civilian life and career through supporting people to succeed in new employment. We have given people a better bridge from defence, making support needs based, improving the communication between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and defence, and ensuring those most at risk have the support they need when they need it. Discharge from service and adjusting to civilian life is never an easy period. There are many that struggle with it, and many of those people come to the offices that all of us run in our electorates. But ensuring that there is better support, ensuring that systems work better and ensuring that we not only honour and remember our service men and women but actually provide them the support that can ensure them a successful transition is so vital.

I want to come to a point that was made by the Leader of the Opposition, who immediately preceded me in this debate, about the national commissioner versus a royal commission. I'd like to address the particular point that he made. I think for many Australians the concept of a royal commission has become the highest form of public policymaking in our public life. Whenever we see a major problem, we see a royal commission. There are some strengths of royal commissions and there are some weaknesses. I think we need to be cognisant of those strengths and weaknesses. One of the reasons why I think that the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention is a better deal for veterans than a royal commission is this. Royal commissions tend to shine a bright light on an issue for a time. That light burns bright, but then it dims and fades and, very soon, the issues for which the commission was set up are quickly forgotten and they're no longer the subject of public debate. They're no longer the subject of broad attention.

Why this is a better option is that this is the equivalent of having a royal commission all the time because what we are giving the national commissioner is the same powers as a royal commission. And what are those powers that make a royal commission different from any other investigatory body? They can compel the production of evidence and summon witnesses. Those are the two fundamental powers that a royal commission has that other bodies that do inquiries don't have. We are giving those powers to a permanent national commissioner who will effectively be running a royal commission every single day.

But rather than having the traditional royal commission model, which everyone 'lawyers up', there are a lot of wider functions the national commissioner is given because the national commissioner has a broader remit. There is a lot that we need to understand as policymakers about the systemic issues that lead to the problems we have with suicide among our veterans. The national commissioner will lead this work. The national commissioner, just like a royal commissioner, will be independent of government, an independent statutory authority. We are setting up the statute here with this bill to give them that independence. They will have the powers of a royal commission not just for a day, not just for a week, not just for a couple of years but for all time. The commissioner will be able to gather evidence and information including by consulting experts and families, by summoning witnesses and by obtaining relevant information and reports from government departments—whether that is DVA, the Defence Department or the tri-services themselves. This will enable them to undertake broad-ranging inquiries relevant to their role and hear from any relevant party, including veterans and their families. The position of the families is so important here. The families in these instances are often those who are bereaved by suicide, the loved ones who are left behind.

The national commissioner will be able to conduct their hearings in public or in private. And that's important too because of the sensitive nature of some of the discussions that will take place between veterans, their family, defence personnel and the national commissioner. As I said, very importantly, they will be given those powers that a royal commissioner is given to compel the production of evidence and summon witnesses. If there is somebody who has done some wrongdoing and they are trying to hide, they will not be able to hide. If there is evidence of a cover-up, that evidence can be brought forward. These are the important powers which, under this bill, we are giving the national commissioner.

The national commissioner is ultimately accountable to the Australian people through the members of parliament. Each and every year, the national commissioner will report to the parliament, and the government and will have to report back on what they are doing and what has been recommended to government. That's so vital. We owe it to the veterans, we owe it to current serving defence personnel, we owe it to the families of veterans and we owe it to anybody who might be considering serving our country in uniform to let them know that this is an issue we will take seriously, that we will put in place positive measures, that we will give due ventilation and oxygen to the issues that are raised as a result of the terrible number of deaths by suicide that we see particularly from our veterans committee.

As the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention I'm proud to be part of a government that is so committed to dealing with one of the great social policy challenges not just of our country but of our age. I think this important bill, in a very structured, very thoughtful and very measured way, targets a group of people that are, sadly, overrepresented in the statistics of those who die by suicide. I'm proud to associate myself with this bill and to associate myself with all those veterans who sit in this place who have lobbied hard for this particular measure to be taken. I'm delighted to commend the bill to the House.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] This is an incredibly serious issue. Too many people in our defence and veterans community are committing suicide. And, while there may be some merit to the role of this proposed commissioner, these bills do not go far enough in addressing this serious issue. We need a royal commission. Only a royal commission, with its independence, its powers and its resources, can shine the necessary spotlight on what's happening here and why we are failing our defence communities. Only a royal commission can provide the sort of closure, healing and restorative justice that the defence and veterans community and their family and their friends deserve, and deal with this important issue.

Importantly, a royal commission would provide us as a community with the chance to listen to the tragic stories that are out there, from the parents and families of the veterans who have taken their own lives, and for us to assure them in a very public way that as a nation we are doing everything possible to prevent these sorts of tragic deaths from happening in the future. A royal commission gives us a start and an end date; it gives us clear recommendations. One of those recommendations may indeed be to have a national commissioner, but let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's do the work that we need to do to make sure that this is set up correctly. Let's make sure that we're not putting in place what becomes little more than a glorified federal coroner.

The latest figures from the AIHW on defence members and veterans suicide were released on 9 October. In total, the data showed there were 33 suicide deaths among serving and ex-serving ADF personnel in 2018, and 465 suicides between 2001 and 2018, although many believe the actual figures could be much higher. The AIHW report shows that male veterans are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide than men generally, while the rate of suicide among ex-serving women is twice as high as it is for the general female population. Alarmingly, the research found that ex-servicemen had a 66 per cent higher suicide rate when they were discharged for medical reasons, compared to men who voluntarily discharged.

We are failing these people. We are failing the people whom we have trained and whom we have asked to serve our country and whom in many cases we have sent into incredibly dangerous, stressful situations that most of us simply cannot imagine. They have done their duty. Yet, when the time comes that they can no longer do this task or when they decide that they need a different future, we are failing to provide them with the support they need to transition to life outside of the defence forces. We owe them, their friends and their families so much more. And I share the concern that many of those friends and families have raised that the establishment of a national commissioner—and without a royal commission first—won't accomplish what a royal commission would, because it would have neither the resources nor the independence from government to ask the necessary hard questions: Why are we failing? What are the broad solutions we need? What are the concrete actions we need to put in place? Only a royal commission would have the unambiguous powers to hold public hearings; summon witnesses; compel the production of evidence, pursue, if necessary, disciplinary proceedings; refer charges of criminal or official misconduct to appropriate authorities; and make recommendations for compensation.

As I said, and as others have said in this debate, it may well be that one of the things a royal commission recommends is having a national commissioner. But let's do the work first. Let's make sure we set this up properly. Let's make sure it's comprehensive. These people deserve nothing less. I echo the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Blair that this national commissioner risks being little more than a marketing exercise and an announcement to stave off a royal commission that the Prime Minister doesn't want to hold—an announcement where it's not clear that this commissioner is going to have the powers that they need to be able to support our veterans and their communities and to be able to help this scourge of suicide.

I know that many people in my community share my concerns about the suicides of defence members and veterans. In Jagajaga, we have a long history of caring for defence members and veterans. The Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital, which is now part of the Austin Hospital, was established in 1941 to care for sick and injured service members. The Repat still provides invaluable services to our veterans and our defence community, and it holds a special connection for many of us. I remember visiting my own grandfather, a World War II veteran, there when he needed surgery. Later, as the local federal member, in pre COVID times I was privileged to be able to visit the Repat and its beautiful memorial grounds for services and occasions where we gathered to pay our respects to our defence community. I must acknowledge that all of this happens under the supervision of the tireless Robert Winther and the work that he puts in to supporting our defence community and making sure that they have this space to gather and remember.

The Repat is also home to Ward 17, which I know is a service that is so important to defence members and veterans. For those of you who haven't heard of it before, Ward 17 provides specialised mental health services to veterans and members of the Defence Force, including those people who are suffering from PTSD. It's one of only a handful of such specialised services, so it is much in demand. It plays an important role in rehabilitating and supporting veterans who are going through incredibly serious mental health issues. But the importance that Ward 17 holds for defence members and veterans more broadly in our community is demonstrated by how strongly many of them feel connected to it and to its services. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work of the Young Veterans group, who regularly visit Ward 17 and donate things to support the people who are being treated there, like coffee machines and supplies. I was pleased to see that recently they helped to establish a vegetable garden for people who are being treated there, for them to work on and so get some respite and support and a mental health break through that. I'm looking forward to being able to visit and see that myself, once we're through this period and restrictions have eased. These sorts of services are so vital, and having them in our community is really important, I know, to veterans not just in my community but across our whole state.

It goes to how serious this issue is. If we are asking people to do the ultimate—if we are asking people to work within a system, to train within a system, to put their lives within a system where we send them to war, where we put them in harm's way, where we ask them to do incredibly difficult things—we must have a system that knows how to support them when they come out of that. Now the numbers show us clearly that we don't have a system that is doing that at the moment. The rate of suicide is unacceptably high. The stories from the families affected show us clearly that we do not have a system in place that is able to support people in the way they need when they're coming out of the armed services. For people who have been used to leading their life in a certain way, taking orders, and working within, as I said, a very regimented system, it seems that, when they're leaving that system, we're not thinking enough about: 'What does that transition look like? What supports are there? How will they know who to call? How will their families know who to call? How will their families know to reach out and get the support they might need?' This is not to put any aspersions on services that are there. I know that the services are in place, and I've just alluded to some of them in my electorate; they're doing a wonderful job. But we clearly haven't joined all the dots. We clearly haven't worked out the whole piece of what should be there, and it's because we need to work out this whole piece that we need a royal commission and not just a national commissioner. We need something comprehensive. This is what families have been calling for. We shouldn't waste any time because, if we spend longer waiting for this, we will, unfortunately, I think, see more suicides from amongst our veteran community.

My brother is a veteran of Afghanistan. Fortunately for him and for my family, he had a relatively smooth transition out of the defence forces, and I'm very grateful for that because I can only imagine the heartbreak for those families whose transition has not been so smooth. I can only imagine the efforts that they went to to try and support their loved ones through that transition and how they've been let down by a system that clearly wasn't in place. I applaud their bravery in speaking out and continuing to advocate for a royal commission. That bravery deserves to be acknowledged. Those of us in this place need to acknowledge their strength, need to acknowledge their pain. We need to listen to what they're asking for, because we need to help them heal as well as help to prevent future tragedies. There have been too many deaths for us not to act urgently and for us not to act as strongly as possible. We do need a royal commission. Nothing less will do justice.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 this morning. Fisher—in fact, the Sunshine Coast—has one of the largest veteran communities in the whole of the country. Whilst the figures are a little bit hard to determine at this stage, we estimate that it's around 15,000 members, which is very significant. We know that it's a specific question on the next census, so we will be able to get much better eyesight on that.

This is a really important issue. It's too important to play politics with. Those on the other side are making out as though the entire defence community wants a royal commission. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've spoken with many veterans in my own community of Fisher and many have told me that they don't want a royal commission. Many of the ESOs have told me that they don't want a royal commission. They don't want a quick sugar hit. What they want is a meaningful path to change—and with very good reason.

The stats are just so alarming. We know from the stats that, from the day a man leaves the ADF, his likelihood of taking his own life jumps from 48 per cent lower than other Australian men to 18 per cent higher. Why is that? When men are in the ADF, when they are serving this nation in fatigues, in they have a 48 per cent lower chance, but when they leave it jumps to 18 per cent higher. I've got some of my own theories about this. I want to recognise the member for Braddon, who's just walked into the chamber, for his long and distinguished service in uniform to this country, and all the men and women who have served this country on both sides of the chamber for the work that they've done. They know so much more than I do. I've never served in uniform. I've had the great privilege of meeting many that have and do, but I think it's one of those jobs where the only way you really understand what they do is if you serve. I bow to their greater knowledge on this.

But, in my view, part of the reason that this is failing us, that our stats are so poor, is that, when men and women are serving this country in the ADF, they have a sense of purpose, they have a sense of mission and, importantly, they have an incredible sense of tribe. They know why they've got to get up in the morning and why they've got to work all day and they have that concept of purpose. And often—not always but often—when they leave the ADF some men and women struggle with that loss of purpose and particularly that loss of tribe. In my view, that is key to this pandemic, this epidemic of suicide that we have seen.

This year's report includes the first figures for ex-serving women. Sadly, they are more than two times as likely as other women to die by suicide. Between 2001 and 2017, 419 lives were cut short. That's 10 times the number of service personnel we lost in combat in Afghanistan in the same period. I know that the defence ministers—the defence minister, the defence industry minister and the defence industry and veterans' affairs minister—are all singing from the same hymn sheet. They know what the problem is.

This commissioner's role will shine a light on this issue. The commissioner will have all the powers of a standing royal commission. I don't know what I've got to say to get that through to those on the other side: it will have all the powers of a standing royal commission. It will have the ability to subpoena documents and require people to give evidence—not for a day, not for a week, not for 12 months; it is ongoing. The other side are either ignorant as to what a royal commission does or they are playing politics with an issue which is so important, and that is disgraceful.

In times of conflict we ask our service men and women to give up so much—to be away from their family and to risk life and limb. Our respect goes to them absolutely. We know that some veterans need extra support when they discharge. What I really want to impress upon the House today is that, whilst I fully respect and agree with the government's role on this, in announcing the powers of this commissioner, what we need to do is keep things in perspective. I am very fearful that, if all we talk about is how broken veterans are, these guys and girls will never be able to get a job when they discharge. With all the best will and best intentions we want to raise the spectre of what they deal with and reduce the stigma of mental ill health, but what we don't want to do is create some perverse concept in our community that if you're a veteran you are automatically a broken man or a broken woman. If you were an employer, why would you want to employ a veteran, if you were concerned about their mental health? This is so important. Not all veterans are broken men and women. I want to acknowledge the member for Herbert, who has just walked into the chamber, for his distinguished service in uniform.

We cannot overcook this. The best way to get someone to transition well is to ensure as best we can that they are well trained and able to get a job after their service. If they can't get that job because employers are worried about what they're getting, through an unfounded concern, we are creating a problem which is not there. We are creating the problem that Australian employers will not want to run the risk of employing veterans. I know that veterans are exceptional employees. They are loyal, they are hardworking, they are smart and they have ingenuity.

Australian employers, I put this challenge out to you today. I put this challenge out to you to want to seek to employ a veteran today and tomorrow. The very next opening that you have, search out a veteran. Tell your HR person or people, 'I want you to find me a veteran—or veterans.' You will not be disappointed. So we need to be very careful that we don't overcook the issue. As important as it is, we do not want to create an environment where our hardworking veterans cannot find work. So let's be very, very mindful of that.

There are so many things I could talk about that this government is doing for veterans in the budget. Since my time in this place in 2016, every year we have provided new incentives and new programs to look after our veterans' mental health and to make their transition into civilian life more seamless. It doesn't matter what your mental health ailment may be, if you've served any more than one day in the ADF, you get free treatment. You don't have to try and argue to Veterans' Affairs that your condition is linked to your service. Anything more than one day and you'll be looked after—commonsense things like that. We're also looking after the families of veterans because we know that they are the silent victims; they say that the boys and girls in uniform are the volunteers, but the family are the conscripts—a little bit like politics. We need to make sure that we look after the families, and we are doing just that through more programs like Open Arms—Veterans & Families Counselling.

I want to go to the bill because I am running out of time. I could talk about this for a year. What's needed now is a means to evaluate where we are—what's worked, what hasn't—and to track the ongoing impact of the work that we're doing. That is what the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention will deliver. As I said earlier, it will have all the powers of a standing royal commission. I say to those opposite: please do not play politics on this issue. The welfare of our veterans, like the member for Braddon, the member for Herbert and all their colleagues, is too important. It is too important to play politics.

When enacted, this bill will formalise the role of the office of the commissioner. Resourced by $42.7 million, Dr Bernadette Boss will be the interim commissioner. She'll have the ability to examine in detail every case of suicide among current and former service men and women going back to 2001. She'll seek to understand why these cases have occurred and, importantly, explore what we can do to prevent them. As part of the process, the families and veterans who've been impacted by these 419 deaths will have the opportunity to share their stories and give us the benefit of their insight into the reality behind these tragic circumstances. An interim report from this royal commission-like investigation will be provided to the government within 12 months and a final report will be provided within 18 months.

We've got to learn. We've got to learn more. We've got to do more. This role will do just that. I commend it to the House.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I rise to speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill. Like many of the previous speakers, and in agreement and accordance with them, I believe that this is such an important issue for all of us and for the nation and that it is one that deserves our full attention. As our shadow minister, the member for Blair, said earlier, too little has been done on this historically. That is a big part of why we have been calling for a royal commission into veterans' suicides and why we joined in the chorus of calls from veterans and the families of veterans in support of a royal commission. I don't think that is necessarily playing politics, as the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, said. It is an acknowledgement and recognition of how important this issue is and of the need to deal with it. That is what we're debating today, what the government has proposed in this bill.

Much of the work around this issue has been done by veterans, some of them in this chamber, including the member for Solomon on our side and members on the government benches who also have served. I acknowledge their work on this. The member for Solomon has done a lot of work, calling for a royal commission publicly, and has rightly pointed out that it is an urgent moral imperative that we call for one, because, in a historical sense, nothing else has worked. Despite the clear consensus from stakeholder groups, from veterans themselves and from the broader public, the government has gone a different way, and that's what we're debating with respect to this bill today.

Labor cautiously welcomed the announcement in February of the new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, believing it to be a step forward. We didn't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It was about being bipartisan on this issue so as to get the outcomes that were needed in respect of veterans and their families. Since then, Labor along with many veterans and families of veterans, such as Julie-Ann Finney, have become increasingly concerned that the national commissioner won't be better than a royal commissioner, as the government has claimed. It has become clear that the government has a lot of work to do to convince not only themselves but also the broader public that they are genuine in wanting to tackle this issue. In saying that, I don't deny the genuine motivation of speakers on the government benches. There is a genuine motivation there to address this issue. What we're debating is really the substance of the bill and whether that achieves what we all want to see in getting outcomes that are necessary.

In a sense I say, and I plead with the government, that this cannot simply be just another marketing exercise. The government knows this and many of its speakers know this. As much as we've been critical of the government in the past for the way it has conducted the politics around various bills and legislation, we do believe that a royal commission would be substantially better. There are clear-cut arguments around that, some of which we've heard. We are concerned that the government's national commission won't or can't accomplish what a royal commission would be able to accomplish, because it simply won't have the resources and the independence from government to ask the really hard questions. We know that only a royal commission would have the unambiguous powers to hold public hearings and the ability to summon witnesses, to compel the production of evidence, to pursue disciplinary proceedings, to refer charges of criminal or official misconduct to appropriate authorities and to make recommendations for compensation. Only a full royal commission with clear start and end dates will achieve this and will shine the light where it needs to be shone. Otherwise the national commissioner runs the risk of being little more than a federal coroner in that kind of role. We know only a royal commission will provide the much-needed closure, healing and restorative justice to the Defence and veteran community. We have seen this in other areas in public life, whether it be in mental health, child sexual abuse, aged care or disability services.

The royal commission would allow us to really listen to the community—listen to the parents and families of veterans who have suffered with their children—and assure them in a public way that we are doing everything possible to prevent these tragic deaths from happening in the future. This is so important. It's so important, because from 2001 to 2019 there were 419 suicides of serving, reserve and ex-serving ADF personnel—those who have served since 2001. We lose one veteran a week by suicide.

According to research by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, in a 12-month period 5,800 ex-serving men and women are homeless. These are the men and women who serve our country. We spend so much time acknowledging, celebrating, noting and putting up for the public to see the great sacrifice and service that they give out country, and yet we have almost 6,000 ex-servicemen and women who are homeless. This rate is significantly higher than for all Australians. These numbers don't speak to the individual human stories behind them. They're statistics, yes, but there are stories of people who are suffering now and who are vulnerable to all of the risk factors that lead a person to suicide.

I have some idea of the turmoil that veterans go through. I've seen it firsthand. I have worked closely with ADF personnel throughout my working life. I have called, and still do call, many friends. I was posted to Iraq in 2003 and 2004 by the Department of Defence to work on national security issues, and I worked alongside many of our finest ADF personnel, including the former member Colonel Mike Kelly, and many others. When you work with ADF personnel, particularly in operational theatres, you see firsthand that there are real psychological impacts of the work that they do when they are in conflict and when they are in those war zones, in those theatres, with the stressors, the pressures, the psychological impacts and the physical impacts. You see the scars that it leaves on so many ADF personnel, because they are on the frontline.

A lot of people talk about the 'frontline'. We use that word a lot, but the serving ADF men and women of Australia make a significant, special sacrifice in that their job is one where they're putting their lives on the frontline, literally, for the defence of this nation. That is something special. It's something we, quite rightly, highlight on many occasions, drawing attention to that special sacrifice. It's significant, and, because it is that significant, it carries with it great risks to their health—not just their physical health but their mental health.

For many of us, when we left Iraq, both serving uniformed personnel and other, we got army psychologists to do an exit interview with us, which is, in many respects, the beginning and is important. Many of the effects of being in a war zone, an operational theatre, are long lasting. From talking to a lot of the vets that I knew in Iraq and who served in Iraq at the time, I know about the difficulty that they find in coming back to a normal life. I suspect it is the same—and I have spoken to many—for those who have served on multiple tours in Afghanistan or in East Timor. I recall the difficulty in coming back into what is a normal or civilian life, especially after being discharged. For many months, on my return, I recall trying not to jump the cover every time I heard a door slam or a car backfire. Just walking down a crowded street was difficult. There is a lot of hypersensitivity and it's hard to adjust back to what most people would consider to be a normal life. As the previous speaker mentioned, after leaving that unit—that 'tribe' as it was described—it's a very difficult transition. I remember in my exit interview I said to the Army psychologist, 'I don't really need this; there are a lot more uniformed ADF personnel who've had it much tougher.' But she told me something really important, and I think it applies to ADF personnel across the board: everyone has their own experience in those theatres. Everyone has specific experiences that are particular to them, and these things can affect people in very, very different ways, and that needs to be dealt with. You can't just sweep that under the rug. Because if you don't address those issues that emanate from very extreme, abnormal experiences—being in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever in a war zone or in a theatre of operation is just not normal—those experiences can be exacerbated to the extent that they have impacts which make really significant ongoing problems, particularly for veterans trying to transition back into normal life.

And many veterans have difficulty talking about those experiences. The RSLs are still there for vets to meet and have a beer and maybe talk to someone who can understand them. I'm worried, too, that many of the younger veterans, particularly from the more recent campaigns, are probably not going to places like that as much as older veterans are from previous conflicts, like the Vietnam vets. They're just starting to come in and spend time at the various sub-branches. I know it's a small thing, but that ability to just talk to someone who understands you is of great significance, because those types of extreme experiences haunt a person throughout the rest of their life.

I remember we were working on training the Iraqi Army during that period in 2003 and 2004, and the ADF played a really critical role in training the new Iraqi Army. We had an interpreter there, Ali, who has half Sunni and half Shiite, and he worked with a lot of us and did the work there as part of a team. He was so excited that the Australians were training an Iraqi Army that did not see the difference between Sunni or Shiite or Kurd, and there was a vision for a security force and a defence force that went beyond the sectarian differences and the ethnic differences. That's what Australia was doing: training that new army and creating that new esprit de corps. And Ali lost his life. He was beheaded by al-Qaeda in Iraq, because he worked with Australian forces and coalition forces. I still struggle with that memory, because he worked so closely with us. The ADF personnel who worked with him would probably think about him a lot as well, because he made sacrifices to work with ADF forces and coalition forces to do something—to make a better future for his own country. These are some of the experiences, even of people that you know have suffered, that linger with you and stay with you over the years. Sometimes people are overcome by that. Some veterans can't deal with that, and we see the tragedy that occurs when those experiences can't be addressed.

We know that the devil is going to be in the detail of the bill. We will study the legislation that is being introduced, and we have referred the bill to a Senate inquiry to allow proper scrutiny as well. We think it's important to further consult with stakeholders and scrutinise as thoroughly as possible, to see if—as is claimed by some of the previous speakers—the powers within this bill for the national commission will have the same powers as a royal commission. We're saying that, clearly, a royal commission would be better, given all the arguments around the importance of the powers of a royal commission. It's important that we get this right. It's not about playing politics; it's about trying to get the best possible response to what is a significant problem that exists. We believe that this can be addressed through a comprehensive inquiry. For our veterans, our men and women who are currently serving and those who have served and come back into civilian life, with the sacrifices they have made and the impacts on their mental and physical health, the onus is on us to look after them. We need to recognise that they made the decision to do that job. We need to honour their sacrifice and service not just by words but by the substantive policy that we are debating today to make sure that when they return home they have the full support, services and resources they need to have a successful life for the rest of their lives. As a society, we should not just honour our veterans on Anzac Day, Remembrance Day and other occasions. We should honour them in what we do today in this debate. We should honour them fully by doing everything we can to prevent the terrible scourge of suicide and the risks they face. That's what this bill should be about and that's why we are doing what we are doing. (Time expired)

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While every single piece of legislation that passes through this House is important, the opportunity to contribute to the debate today on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 is something I'm particularly passionate about. It is an honour to be a part of the discussion about this incredibly important issue. When I first nominated to run in the seat of Herbert, the unacceptable rate of suicide in the defence and veteran community was unashamedly my biggest driving force. As someone who has buried far too many mates and felt the tears and heart-wrenching grief of family and loved ones who have lost someone, I say to this House that governments of all persuasions have not done nearly enough to provide real solutions to this life-and-death situation. I hope this bill changes that forever.

After sitting on the sidelines feeling furious about the lack of meaningful action, I recognised that throwing rocks from the sidelines was easy but, at the end of the day, it didn't change anything. The only way to be part of the solution is from inside the tent, where the decisions are made. I'm privileged that the people of Townsville have allowed me that seat at the table in this House. Today it is an honour to stand in this House and be a part of the government that is providing solutions that we in the defence and veteran community have been seeking for many, many years.

We talk about the fact that there have been more than 400 suicides within the defence and veteran community in less than 20 years. It's important to me that we take the time to reflect that those people are so much more than just another statistic. They are more than 400 people who are husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts and best friends. They are more than 400 people for whom the lives of their family, friends and loved ones will never be the same. They are more than 400 people who had already contributed so much to our nation and had so much more before them. Unfortunately, as I'm sure we'll agree, a flawed system let every single one of those people down. When they couldn't find the support or help they needed, they eventually succumbed to their war within. That includes 10 mates who are very near to me and I mourn the loss of every single day. I would like to put it on the record that these people were strong, motivated, confident, charismatic and amazing people who had their entire lives in front of them. Unfortunately, on a given day, at a given moment, they just couldn't see past the darkness that tormented them.

When I moved a private member's motion on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, originally seconded by a colleague on the opposite side of the House, the former member for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, a Labor member, I could finally start to see a light at the end of what has been a very long and tragic tunnel. At last there was a focus on meaningful change that would shine a light into the darkest corners of what can only be described as a national shame, where our defence and veteran community didn't feel supported in the way that they needed.

Since I moved that motion on the appointment of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, I've been contacted by many hundreds of people. I'd like to thank each and every one of them for their contribution and their welcome engagement. While the majority of people who have contacted me support the introduction of the national commissioner, I'd also like to acknowledge in this House those people who do not. I would like to assure those people that they, too, have a voice and it's been heard. I understand their concerns and would like it noted in this House that my decision to support a national commissioner is not something that I have taken lightly. I feel the weight heavily and I know I must do everything within my power to honour the memory of the hundreds of men and women who are no longer here with us today. To the families, loved ones and friends of the defence personnel and veterans who have died by suicide, I say to you that I support the national commissioner for one reason: I truly believe that this is the only avenue that will provide the ongoing powers and obligations that are necessary to help eliminate defence and veteran suicide.

The commissioner will start work immediately with an independent review of past defence and veteran suicides. This is extremely important if we are to truly fix this devastating issue. Under the legislation, the commissioner will not be constrained by a certain end point in time. They'll be able to investigate suicides that have occurred in the defence and veteran community for those who had served one day or more since 2001. This is extremely important. This is one of the key reasons that the establishment of a national commissioner is a step in the right direction. This will be a rolling, ongoing process looking at each and every incidence as the commissioner sees fit. There should be no inhibiting factors that will prevent them from investigating whatever they deem necessary to prevent another life being needlessly lost.

It's also imperative that families and loved ones are not forced to wait years on end for the results of these investigations to be released. Times is of the essence, and that's why an interim report will be drafted within 12 months, with the final report due in an 18-month period. That report is only final in the sense that it will be the final report of the interim review, not the final report of the national commissioner. That's because there won't be a final report of the commissioner. Unlike a royal commission, which has a clear end, the national commissioner is a rolling appointment and will report back to government and the Australian people every year. The annual report will be tabled in parliament and may draw on any or all aspects of the commissioner's functions or powers. The commissioner will also have the freedom to address urgent matters as they see fit. For example, if they believe not enough action has been taken on a particular issue, they'll bring an additional report to parliament. The government of the day will be held to account for its actions or its inactions by being required to respond in writing to those reports and table those responses in parliament. Importantly, the national commissioner's job never stops. It keeps going. It keeps investigating. It keeps reporting. It keeps assessing. In the memory of and respect for every single defence member and veteran who has succumbed to their war within, nothing less will do.

The national commissioner must have teeth. Something that I am proud of in this bill is the extensive powers that it outlines, including conducting inquiries, holding hearings, requiring the giving of information or production of documents and applying search warrants. For inquiries, the commissioner can look into the person's service in the ADF, including their training or transition out of the ADF and any issues connected to when they entered or when they left. They can investigate their health and wellbeing and counselling support at the time and its effectiveness as well as the quality and effectiveness of responses to any complaints made by them or their family.

Key to this function will be looking into whether the circumstances of a tragic death reflect broader or systemic issues contributing to defence and veteran suicide rates. Hearings will be public, except in very specific circumstances, and held in a manner which the commissioner sees fit. Another power is that which allows for the summons of a person to give evidence or produce documents. Not doing so will be an offence and subject to prosecution and punishment. People may also be required by the commissioner to take an oath or affirmation, and if they are not willing to do so that will also constitute an offence. The commissioner can also apply for search warrants, effectively giving them and their authorised members the power to undertake investigations in order to get the full picture surrounding an unfortunate death. There are also provisions in the bill to enable the commissioner and the state and territory coroners to work collaboratively by sharing certain information, but without duplicating or replacing that role.

The commissioner, Dr Boss, has significant experience in both the legal field and the military. She also started her career as a nurse, which means she knows what it's like to be at the coalface of these complex and devastating issues. The fact that she has already held inquests and hearings into suicides allows her to come to the role with a deep understanding and knowledge of the very heart of the issues at hand, which will be vital in getting this process right. Since standing alongside the Prime Minister earlier this year and announcing the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, I have told people it is their job to hold us, in this place and in the new office of the commissioner, to account. It's something we must never forget. I make the promise to all Australians that the honour and privilege of being in this House and representing them will remain front of mind, today and every day.

Tuesday was my 'alive day'. It was the day, 11 years ago, that I was blown up in Afghanistan by an improvised explosive device. That day changed my life forever. I went into a very dark place and almost lost everything and everyone that I hold dear. The war within and the long battle back from PTSD was a living nightmare. I did things and acted in ways that to this day I'm not proud of and would undo in a heartbeat. My saving grace was the love and support of my wife, Jenna, and our network of family and friends, who helped bring me back from the darkness. Today I'm married to the love of my life, I have two amazing young daughters and I get to represent the wonderful people of Townsville in the House of Representatives. I do not take a single moment of that existence for granted. Every day I think of the more than 400 defence members and veterans who aren't here to have the same opportunities. I feel devastated at that loss. I'm devastated for them, for their families and loved ones and for our nation more broadly.

While there is no silver bullet, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention is a monumental step in the right direction. We must keep going with the fight for change until those within our defence and veteran community who are in the darkness feel supported enough to find their light again. In honour of the mates I've lost, their families and loved ones, who grieve that loss daily, and the many hundreds of others who share that pain, I commend this bill to the House.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I acknowledge the remarks of the previous speaker and thank him for his service to our country, for the sincerity of those words and for his courage not just to get through the war within, as he described it—I was touched by that description; it perhaps gives those of us who haven't served an insight into that internal battle—but to speak about these issues and bring light to this problem. I respect that and thank him for it. I also acknowledge the many other members of this House and the other place that have served in the military over many years in different capacities.

I rise to speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and the consequential amendments. I'll address my comments to both bills but also to the second reading amendment. I say at the start that I do believe every member of this House shares a determination to address the ongoing tragedy of veteran suicide. The desire to make change in this area is not a partisan matter and nor should it ever be. But we do differ, as is proper and reasonable on many matters, about what the right approach is, what the right and necessary action is. As colleagues have noted, Labor is gravely concerned that the establishment of a national commission, while better than nothing, absolutely does not go far enough to prevent veteran suicide.

There is still time for the Morrison government to establish a royal commission and ensure that there is effective accountability and transparent justice for veterans and their suffering families. I'm concerned that the Prime Minister is so desperate, as in so many areas, to avoid agreeing with Labor and calling a royal commission, so he's made up this convoluted workaround. It's not in any way to disrespect the sincerity of the previous speaker, and I'm sure many others opposite, but I encourage the Prime Minister to swallow his pride and call a royal commission. It would not be a surprise if one of the outcomes of a properly constituted, properly run royal commission was a recommendation for a standing commissioner with those powers as has been described, but I believe the Morrison government needs to actually listen to the voices of veterans and what they're saying.

I've been besieged by emails, and I'm sure every other member of this place has received emails, from veterans, from RSLs, calling for a royal commission. There is not us playing politics as we've been accused of. This is what so many veterans are saying and are calling for. We do not need to lose more lives waiting. It's a national travesty that men and women who served our nation are taking their own lives due to unresolved trauma and the inability to access adequate care upon their return.

I personally have never served, but it's been an enormous privilege to spend time with the men and women of the Australian Defence Force through the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. I have previously stated in this chamber that I believe, it's a personal belief, there's a moral imperative on members of parliament, particularly those who haven't served, to put and to keep a human face to those who have served and continue to serve, because state sponsored violence and war is the ultimate, the greatest failure of politics.

When I was elected in 2016 I visited Afghanistan and have participated in many other ADFPP programs. I have committed to myself—a little promise to myself—that I'll spend at least a week every year that I serve in this place with the ADF to learn and to keep that human face front and centre. COVID, of course, has disrupted that for all of us, but otherwise I'm on track and will remain so.

During these times I witnessed firsthand how in conducting their service ADF personnel honour life by sacrificing their own safety and security to defend ours. It's, therefore, our duty and our moral responsibility to honour their lives by ensuring there are appropriate and effective supports in place for them on their return to civilian life. If we send young men and women to theatres of war and they return with damaged bodies and minds, it is our failure if they feel disrespected, unheard, forgotten, and it is our failure if we do not do everything within our power, everything possible, to help them heal.

If anything demonstrates the ongoing, continuing systemic failure of not supporting veterans it is the suicide rates for returned service personnel. The statistics are well-known but should be repeated by all of us. Recent reports suggest that 41 ADF personnel and veterans have taken their own lives this year, that's 41 human beings who have needlessly died and now 41 families and loved ones who are also victims. The trickle-down effect of these deaths will be long felt throughout the community and our country. Ex-servicemen are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide, and 465 people took their own lives between 2001 and 2018, and indeed most of the experts tell us that those statistics are underreported. Every suicide is a tragedy that reverberates for decades and down the generations. Tragically, of course, veteran suicide is not new. I visited the War Memorial only this weekend. When in Canberra I try to pop in there quietly from time to time—spend an hour, keep that human face, learn something new. I read a few stories of the early VC recipients. The first story that I read I thought, 'What incredible bravery and it ended in suicide' and that was back in the early 1900s.

I asked someone a couple of years ago when we were talking about this and also the trauma, the PTSD, that many Australian Federal Police experience for different reasons. It was a private conversation. I said, 'I don't understand—why does this seem to be a growing problem these days?' They observed—wisely, I think—that soldiers have always suffered mental trauma in the horror of conflict, but the black truth they offered me was that, these days, we're much better at keeping their bodies alive than in years past, decades past, and we're much better at recognising and naming PTSD. So now we must become much better at helping people heal their mental trauma, or the war within, as the member for Herbert so aptly described it. Things on that front need to change, and they need to change fast. We don't need another marketing exercise from the Morrison government; we need change. These people we're talking about are not numbers and statistics; they're real people who sacrificed and served our nation. We disrespect their inherent humanity and betray our values and their service when we don't take every step within our power to address the ongoing injustice that faces veterans and their families.

I'll take this opportunity to acknowledge the suffering of the families and express my sincerest condolences to those who've lost loved ones, including in my electorate. Sometimes the families are invisible in these debates, and so are those with long-term physical and psychological injuries. So, even though we cannot see those psychological scars, we want you to know we see you. We want veterans and families to know that, despite the bureaucracy they fight, often on a daily basis, people in this chamber do truly care about their circumstances and suffering, and hear them.

Inquiry after inquiry has found that the system is broken and that people are falling through the cracks. The suicide rate is evidence of this. As Julie-Ann Finney, the mother of David Finney, who tragically took his own life in February 2019, stated, 'The failure to address PTSD is creating a whole new war zone for our veterans.' That is why Labor has repeatedly called for a royal commission to address the continuing systemic failures that a royal commission—with those powers, with those resources, with that evidence and with that compressed time frame—does focus on. It is time for change; it is time for a royal commission. Any steps to support veterans and their families and, in turn, address the rates of veteran suicide is something that we all should support. As I said earlier, it would not be a surprise if the proposal for a commissioner arose out of the royal commission, but we should have the royal commission, with those powers, with that mandate, with those resources, to really shine light on this and come up with the best possible solutions.

We need to ensure that, if this legislation passes, as I believe it will, a national commissioner will have the same powers as a royal commission, and it doesn't appear to us that this is the case. A royal commission would ensure accountability—that there are public hearings, that there's the ability to compel witnesses and to produce evidence. Importantly, a royal commission will have the power to refer charges of criminal or official misconduct. This is about the dispensation of justice, not the appearance of justice. It's also important that there is institutional independence, that any commissioner will have the independence required to bring down impartial findings that can then be implemented to create long-term and systemic change. Inquiry after inquiry has been fraught with issues of independence, and that is a risk with the commissioner model. This is central not just to accountability but also to ensure that veterans and their families feel heard and have some greater semblance of justice, and to ensure they have closure.

The government must start listening to families—not just hearing them but listening to them. So many families are calling for the royal commission. That's why Labor referred the legislation to a Senate inquiry to allow for proper scrutiny. However, I must stress: the longer the Morrison government stalls, I fear the more veterans will take their own lives. Only the government has the power to establish a royal commission now. I conclude by saying that this bill is certainly better than nothing, but it's not good enough. We need a royal commission.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm honoured today to speak in favour of this bill, the National Commissioner For Defence And Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020. Before I do so, I want to tell a story, a story that I've alluded to in the Federation Chamber, but I think it's important that it's said today. In the months preceding my discharge from the Australian Regular Army I was called to a civilian police station. They put me in the back of the car and they took me down to the Gold Coast hospital. They took me down to the morgue, where I was required as a sergeant major of that unit to identify one of my soldiers, who had taken his life in the early hours of that morning. I can tell you now that's a difficult thing to do. It's one of those things that we do in the military called our duty—and you do your duty. So, having done that, I then returned to the unit back in Toowoomba: 7th Signal Regiment, electronic warfare. The commanding officer and I broke that tragic news to the brothers and sisters that that young digger had in the unit. I can tell you what, Deputy Speaker: I can still today, in this particular second in time, close my eyes and see the looks on their faces and the looks in their eyes. The grief, the shock, the sadness.

In the military we are a family. We would gladly in an instant give our life for our friend and we mean that; it's not just something we go by. No one says it, but we all know it. And, as a leader in the military, there's an added issue that we all need to consider, and that is the responsibility issue. I can tell you that, as the sergeant major and the leader of that unit, I still feel responsible for losing that digger that day and all the other diggers I've lost, sadly, under my watch. I was the one who then had to go back and grab his mates. We went back to the lines and we cleaned that kid's room out. We packed his stuff up—his personal stuff, his letters. And I can still today in this place remember the looks on those friends that he had as they packed his room up.

I told them to keep one uniform aside—his polyester uniform—and later I'd take that back to the funeral director and I'd help the funeral director dress him in his polyester uniform. I can remember standing there with that open coffin, with that kid with his polyester uniform on, and telling him that I was sorry, that I didn't see it, that I didn't recognise the signs, that I should have seen it coming and it was my job to know the dire situation and the global impact that this was having on that young person. I missed it.

Fifteen years later I'm still sorry and I'm sorry for all those veterans that we've lost through suicide, and I mean that so sincerely today. It's something that I live with every day and every night. It's something that those mates of his live with every day and every night. We went through the funeral process, and those young blokes were trained by me to carry that coffin draped in the Australian national flag, his bayonet and his accoutrements. At the end of that service we folded the Australian national flag in a very ceremonial way. I grabbed it off the young bloke that folded it, and the commanding officer and I then walked over to the next of kin and presented her with a flag. I can still remember the look in that mother's eyes as she took it. She clenched it and she cried and, as her flag was covered in her tears, I couldn't help but think that that is the only thing that poor mother has of her own flesh and blood, of her precious son. I guarantee you she thinks about that every day and every night and every week and every month, and next year and the year after she will continue to think about that.

That is why it is so important that the measures that we put in place as a government, as a nation, look after our veterans not just today, not just tomorrow, not just next week but forever. An ongoing commissioner is what we need. Sure, you can have a royal commission that will look retrospectively at what happened and what occurred and put recommendations in place, and they will sit in some department somewhere. But is that going to be any good for that mother that's going into next week and next year? This needs to be an ongoing commission. It needs to have the powers of a royal commission. It needs to have the ability to subpoena witnesses and to put things in place that will stop it and fix it. And that is why this is so important.

The military is a big family, and I was proud to spend 20 years of my life in that family. I acknowledge my mate and my colleague the member for Herbert, because we're brothers; we'll always be brothers. But the point I make is: the impact and the fallout from a death, particularly by suicide, has a dramatic and devastating impact on a family. That is why I support and I welcome the Veteran Family Advocate and Commissioner Gwen Cherne's appointment to that position. Families are important. Families are going to play their part in the transition process of leaving the big family that we have as the military—in my case, the Army. When you leave that after 20 years, you feel that a part of you has gone. You've got to start a new life. And that's where families come in, and that's why families are so important. That's why the family commissioner is so important, in enabling this to happen smoothly.

We need to reconnect our veterans to a new family, to a new way of life. We need to give them purpose again. These are some of our finest young men and women that we're talking about here. They stood on a wall with a rifle and they said: 'Not on my watch.' They were prepared to lay their life down for their mates and for their nation. They're proud people. They're competent. They're smart. They're driven. They have a set of principles that is unmatched in any civilian space. These are the people that we need to help to make that transition.

As we leave, certain things will stay with us, and I'll talk to you briefly today about the things that stay with me: the thoughts that I have; the responsibility that I carry. And it's a burden. I don't mind saying that I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and I'm medicated daily for it. I don't say that for pity—don't get me wrong. I say that to let all veterans know that, yes, I understand that you may have a similar affliction, like me or my mate from Herbert, but there's help there, and it's a positive thing. You can still function at a high level and get on with your life and look after your family, and this is a positive thing. Too often we see conventions and seminars and meetings about mental health, and it's all a dark picture—it's all so dark. But I want to tell the positive story, that help is there. It's there today; it'll be there next week and next year; it will always be there. And blokes like the member for Herbert and I will make sure that that happens, I can tell you. But it's a positive thing.

The other thing that I will also talk about is the fallout on the family. When I left the military, my little boy was 2½ years old. He was eight years old when we buried his mother. She was also a serving member, the operations officer at 1 Aviation Regiment before she discharged. That little boy is now 18. He understands that he has a life. He understands that Dad recognises him as an important part of his transition, and we worked together; we stood alongside each other. That's the Australian way. That's what we do as Australians. We look after our mates, shoulder to shoulder. When your mate falls over, you're there to help pick him or her up. It's no different in this place. It's no different when you look at how we treat our veterans. That is exactly what this rolling commissioner, this standing commissioner, and the Family Advocate, will do: be someone to stand there by you; someone to pick you up when you need it. We're not there to mother you or to mollycoddle you. We're there just to be a mate and to make sure that you've got access to resources and the things that you need so that you can transition and make a new family, a new way of life. We're there to reconnect our veterans to a purpose.

Our private enterprise, our businesses, will play an important part as well. I want to assure every business owner today, right across the nation, that employing a veteran is good for your business. Yes, veterans might have had to do a tough job, but not all veterans have a degree of illness or affliction that would preclude them doing a fantastic job. They're talented, they're smart, they're driven, they understand team work and they understand sense of purpose and mission focus. If there's a problem in front of them a veteran will look for the way around it, roll his or her sleeves up and get on with it, and that's what we need to help them do—get on with it.

To bring this back, a royal commission will look over their shoulder, and I was taught as a young bloke that if you look over your shoulder too long you'll end up tripping over. I was taught to look forward. I was taught to stick up for my mates and to help them when they need it most. I was told to be positive, that the glass is half full and not half empty. I'm here to tell the veteran community and the whole business community out there that veterans are good for your business and they will excel in whatever they do. All you need to do is give them a go.

Finally, I give my wholehearted support for the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I begin by tipping my hat, or, more accurately, saluting the member for Braddon for that remarkable contribution and also the member for Herbert. I also would like to express my concern for the many serving personnel and veterans who are living with the scars of their service, in particular the physical and psychological trauma and the severe mental illness that they battle every day and that we in this place should be looking for every opportunity to help with and to serve. My heart also goes out to the great many families, friends and loved ones of the hundreds of serving personnel and veterans who have suicided.

As a veteran of 20 years in the Army myself, most as an infantry officer, I believe I have a very privileged insight into this issue. I, like my ex-military colleagues in this place, have been witness to the tragedies of service. I stand here not as a veteran but, for starters, as the son of World War II veteran who spent two years in Europe as a tail gunner on Lancaster bombers, who did a remarkable 32 missions over occupied Europe when the life expectancy for tail gunners was three missions and who for the rest of his life battled demons, including the demons that I saw as his son when he was alive and I was alive. I stand here also as the brother of a Vietnam veteran, my late brother Joe. He also battled demons from the day he returned to Australia to the day he died of cancer. I remain quite affected by what happened at his wake, when the surviving members of his signals squadron were there to honour my late brother. I remember asking one of the veterans: 'Are there many members of your squadron here?' He said, 'No, no. Most members of the squadron are dead, mostly from cancer and from suicide.' Of course, we didn't treat our veterans from Vietnam at all well, and much has been said about that since, but we do have an opportunity here today to chart a new course to look after our surviving veterans and serving personnel so much better.

I stand here also as an MP who, like my colleagues, I'm sure, has spoken to many parents, friends and loved ones of serving soldiers and veterans who have suicided. We've heard all of their stories firsthand, and I would hope that everyone in this place understands that although we might disagree on what to do about suicide we should at least all be trying to do our best to address the alarming suicide rate among serving members and veterans. In fact, just last week I was at an event where there was a veteran who was shaking almost uncontrollably as he was talking to me—strength to him. I won't say more about who that was, but strength to him. If he hears this speech, he'll know I'm talking about him. There's a very fragile, very damaged man. He's a good example of the sort of man we should be trying to help.

Given what I've seen, I'm regrettably not at all surprised by the statistics. The statistics have been spoken about at some length in this place already, but, just as a reminder: a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found 432 serves or ex-serving members died by suicide between 2001 and 2017. In 2018 alone, 33 died by suicide. And they are only the men and women that we know of.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in its third annual report, found that, once out of the ADF, men are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide than their civilian male counterparts. These are shocking figures. These might have been the figures from after the First World War, they might have been the figures from after the Second World War and they might have been the figures after the Vietnam War, but they shouldn't be the figures after the wars in the Gulf or in South Asia or after the peacekeeping operations everywhere from Cambodia to East Timor and the Pacific Islands. They shouldn't be the figures.

I should add, the figures often include people who are still serving and people who have departed the ADF but didn't see operational service. We should remember that, even in peacetime and in training, there are rigors in the ADF, which people who have not served would struggle to understand. I say to serving members and to veterans who didn't see operational service: 'We in this place are also thinking of you and looking at ways to help you. You have also put on a uniform. You have also served. You have also seen and done things that are completely unlike anything that happens in civvy street. We understand that you have many, many challenges too.'

I did salute the member for Braddon, but, regrettably, I'm going to have to disagree with him about the merits of this commission. I am an advocate for a royal commission. I think these bills are a missed opportunity for a detailed and comprehensive review of Defence and veteran suicide. For a start, the powers of the commissioner as laid out in the legislation simply do not go far enough, nor is the commissioner independent enough. Indeed, by its statutory nature the commissioner will be restricted by the legislation and simply not have the inherent flexibility that an ad hoc inquiry like a royal commission would have. Moreover, the commissioner sits within a government department, so we'd end up with the ludicrous situation of the government effectively, and repeatedly, investigating itself. Clearly a commissioner has to be independent and has to be seen to be independent, not embedded in a government department.

Moreover, the restrictions in this legislation will have the effect of denying friends and families the ability to adequately inquire into the root causes and contributory factors of the death of their loved ones. In other words, this legislation would be a bandaid to a much broader and in-depth issue. It would appear to some people to address a challenge but not actually address it, so, in some ways, it would be worth them doing nothing at all. In other words, we need to go straight to the best solution and not find ourselves stuck with an unsatisfactory solution.

It's no wonder so many members of the community, including myself, have long lobbied for a royal commission. I would hazard a guess that every member in this place and probably every senator in the other place has received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls and had interactions on footpaths—maybe thousands of them. Between the lot of us, I reckon we have received many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of communications from members of the community. The community knows what the problem is. The community knows what the solution is. I think we should be listening to the community. That's our job: to represent them and to represent the people who have the lived experience and have great insight and can help us to understand what the best solution is, and that is a royal commission.

A royal commission would have broad terms of reference and it would have the flexibility to strike out in unforeseen lines of inquiry. A royal commission would be able to compel witnesses to appear. A royal commission would be able to refer people to the justice system in some cases when that's warranted. A royal commission would have a clear end date. A royal commission would make powerful recommendations for reform that couldn't be ignored and which would provide some surety that veterans would be better supported and protected in the future. And, unlike the commissioner as envisaged by the government, a royal commission would deliver its findings in the media spotlight and hold hearings often in the media spotlight, rather than in some annual report to parliament dropped at half past four on a Thursday afternoon, which too often results in difficult issues being watered down or, worse, swept under the carpet.

I do acknowledge that the people who favour a commission see merit in the fact that it would exist for as long as this place decides it would exist—for years or decades. I do see merit in that, but I think we need to have a lightning-bolt response at the start, right now, with a royal commission ordered as quickly as possible, to report as soon as it can, to come up with recommendations that can be implemented and to save lives now and in the short term. But then I do envisage some sort of standing arrangement that would come out of the royal commission that could provide support for serving personnel and veterans for years to come. So I do see some merit in that, but, as I've described, I think we need what I'll call a lightning-bolt response initially to jolt everyone and everything into action and with solutions. Then we can talk about perhaps something like the commissioner on an ongoing basis beyond that. So maybe we need a hybrid model.

I do ask the government and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to look afresh at this issue. I expect that the legislation will go through this place. It will go through the Senate. We will have a commissioner. But I say to the government and to the minister: don't think the job is done, because we won't have had that lightning bolt. We still need that. There is still time for that. In the event of a change of government at the next election, I would hope the next government would revisit this matter. That's what the community wants and that's our job: to represent the community and to represent and help people in uniform and people who have taken their uniform off and are on civvy street now doing their best to battle with their demons. At the end of the day, it is all about them. It is all about our service personnel, both those in uniform and veterans. It is all about the people who have put on a uniform to serve the country, whether they have seen operational service or not. Many of them are battling demons, and it is our job serve them the very best we can. So far, we are letting them down and we are letting down their loved ones, who are calling out for a royal commission.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020. In doing so, I would like to firstly acknowledge the members for Braddon and Herbert for their service and their very balanced submissions today. Indeed, I recognise the service of other members in this place and current serving defence men and women.

Our serving and former Australian Defence Force members and their families make great sacrifices for our nation. They protect our rights and freedoms as Australians and the rights of other nations throughout the world when they are threatened. They put themselves through harrowing acts of combat and face life and death situations. I could not imagine running into the theatre of war.

The latest report on the incidence of suicide amongst current and former serving ADF personnel was released earlier this month. Sadly, it revealed there were a further 33 ADF member and veteran member deaths by suicide in 2018. The loss of one veteran or of one serving member of the ADF is one life too many. Addressing this tragedy is a national priority for the Morrison-McCormack government and indeed for the whole of the government. We can all acknowledge that there are many different factors that can affect someone's mental health—a person's childhood, an occupation or a lifestyle—but when that person's service in the Australian Army, Navy or Air Force is the cause of their poor mental health we should be absolutely committed to ensuring that those veterans and service men and women are supported.

According to veteran group Open Arms our World War II, Korea and Vietnam veterans are susceptible to experiencing depression, alcohol dependence or misuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Open Arms suggests that those who have served in Afghanistan, East Timor or other places where modern conflicts have occurred are susceptible to a range of mental health disorders. More-recent analysis from the National Suicide Monitoring of Service and Ex-Serving Australian Defence Service Personnel 2020 Update shows that ex-service personnel face an increased risk of suicide. In particular, the reason for discharge has been identified as a significant predictor of suicide among ex-serving ADF members. The rate of suicide in those who are discharged on medical grounds is far higher than for those discharged for other involuntary reasons and more than three times greater than for those who discharged voluntarily. Therefore, I support establishing a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention as an independent statutory officeholder within the Attorney-General's portfolio.

The national commissioner will have the inquisitorial powers of a royal commission. However, unlike a royal commission the national commissioner will be an enduring institution with the power to monitor the implementation of their recommendations into the future. This is important. As an enduring institution it is not limited to a point in time. Royal commissions come and go but a national commissioner will not. A veteran advocate in my electorate of Cowper, Richard Kellaway, agrees that an independent national commissioner would be a good person to unpack what he calls 'an age-old problem that even the ancient Greeks and their philosophers debated'—how do we best mitigate the effects of combat on men? Mr Kellaway, at the Veterans Centre Mid North Coast, works tirelessly to assist local veterans and their families with compensation claims and other issues. He is also honest, and openly shared with me his battles with post-traumatic stress disorder from his time of service in the Vietnam War. It is a disorder that he says he manages through meeting with a psychologist and helping veterans. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Kellaway for his advocacy for veterans and for his service to his country.

Under this bill, it is proposed that the functions of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention will include: inquiring into the circumstances of relevant defence and veterans death by suicide; making findings and recommendations addressing defence member and veteran wellbeing and suicide prevention strategies; working collaboratively with state and territory coroners to understand issues contributing to defence and veteran deaths by suicide; and promoting understanding of suicide risk for defence members and veterans and opportunities for improved wellbeing and support.

I'm pleased that the national commissioner will hear from veterans, their families and others affected by suicide. It will provide the opportunity for veterans and their families and other people who have been affected personally to share their story in a supported way. Their contributions will be critical to informing the national commissioner's work. The bill provides that, as a guiding principle, the national commissioner should take a trauma informed and restorative approach in exercising the functions of the office and should recognise that families and others affected by suicide have a unique contribution to make to the national commissioner's work.

I'm similarly pleased that the national commissioner will provide better coordination across government, the Australian Defence Force and stakeholders in the private and charitable sectors. Government inquiries have identified that there is a need to improve integration. The national commissioner will work closely with the Prime Minister's National Suicide Prevention Adviser, and he or she will liaise regularly with the state and territory coroners. The bill provides pathways for information sharing between the national commissioner and other bodies to support their close collaboration. In the event that the national commissioner identifies potential criminal or other improper conduct in the course of their work, they may refer these matters to the police or prosecution bodies for independent investigation. This aligns with an equivalent referral process available to a royal commission.

Establishing a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention builds upon the reforms of the coalition government that have been made to better the lives of our veterans. In October last year, for example, the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant was enshrined in legislation. This covenant outlined the importance of veterans to our country and put in place a statement requiring the Department of Veterans' Affairs to adopt a beneficial approach when interpreting legislation. It also enshrined in legislation that DVA staff are to apply a fair, just and consistent approach to veterans' claims. I acknowledge the work of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Darren Chester, in delivering such reform. I look forward to hearing from veteran advocates like Mr Kelloway, in the future, that these and other measures have made a positive difference.

Through these bills, we, as parliamentarians, have the opportunity to establish a new national commissioner. It is a position that will deliver genuine transparency and uncover the root cause contributing to the death of Australian Defence Force members and veterans by suicide. It is a position that will work on a problem that goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks: how to better support the mental health and the wellbeing of our service men and women, those who form our armies and protect us in times of war.

At this point, I would like to recognise Soldier On, which has been supporting the veteran community since 2012. Through the delivery of holistic services, Soldier On enables veterans and their families to thrive. Soldier On has provided support to veterans and their families, both those who have served and those who continue to serve in the ADF.

I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on behalf of all of the locals in my electorate of Dunkley who have taken the time to email me to ask me to support a royal commission into veteran suicide deaths. I am proud to say to all of you and to all the other veterans in my electorate and across Australia who haven't been able to contact me: I am standing here to support that royal commission. I also am speaking today to recognise the Frankston RSL; the Seaford RSL; the Vietnam Veterans Association, particularly Cheryl, who is so tireless in all of her work; the Frankston Naval Memorial Club in Langwarrin; the Young Veterans who work in my electorate; and all of their members, and everyone who has served and is serving our country, and to say thank you.

It's been a while now that Australian veterans and their family members have been calling for a royal commission, and those calls have got increasingly louder. We need a royal commission into veterans' suicide because this is a real issue, and one that we can't allow to continue. It should have bipartisan support. It's not a political exercise. It's not only about the people that take their lives; it affects the lives their families, their friends, their children and their communities. The latest data shows us that the veterans death toll by suicide since 2001—and I understand it's a conservative figure—is 10 times greater than our losses in Afghanistan. That's not something that we as a society should accept.

It is clear from the conversations that I have had with veterans who live across my electorate of Dunkley that there is system-wide institutional failure and there are real concerns with some of the ways in which the Department of Veterans' Affairs—not the people who work there but the department, the system, as a whole—is operating. So it is time, and many would say high time, that we have a royal commission, which we need to determine why the interventions that have been in place over the years aren't working, and where we can go. Not everyone supports a royal commission. Not everyone who is a veteran supports a royal commission. But, certainly, in my community I have had many people lobby me to ask for a royal commission.

One of the things that a royal commission, through public hearings, can provide—which a standing commissioner can't provide—is closure for some people, and healing and restorative justice. We know from the royal commissions we've had in this country into institutional sexual abuse, mental health, aged care and disability services, which are ongoing, and we know from inquiries that we've seen around the world into social ills, that often one of the most powerful things about those inquiries is the chance for people to tell their stories and to have their stories heard. Yes, the recommendations that would come out of any royal commission are very important, and they may well include to establish a permanent commissioner. But it is just as important to make sure that people's voices are heard, their experiences are taken into account and they know that they are not forgotten or ignored.

We also know that, within our veterans community, there are a range of issues in addition to suicide, but they are often interrelated with that ultimate, terrible and irreversible act. We know that there are issues for many veterans with accessing affordable housing and with homelessness. We know that there is an issue with veterans accessing mental health services before they get to the stage of no return. We know that many people who have served and then come home find it very difficult to re-engage in the community, and they suffer in unemployment and from a sense of isolation. We know that, for the widows and widowers, and children and families of those who have lost their lives while serving, there is ongoing grief, there are often ongoing financial issues, and there are often, again, feelings of isolation. That's where the RSLs, the Young Veterans, the navy clubs and the Vietnam Veterans' Associations are so important—to provide that sense of community. So I am supporting a royal commission because it will be the opportunity to look into all of those issues as well. From my perspective, that's important, because we know they are related to suicide.

I want to finish by saying to the people who have served our country and the people who are serving our country: be assured that I and my colleagues will continue to stand up for you and listen when you ask us to act.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020, which goes to the heart of a very important issue, and that is veterans suicide. I'd also like to give formal recognition to all those members and senators that have continued their service in this building after their own service in the armed forces. We're eternally grateful for everyone who dons the Australian uniform and serves their country—who have heard the call of the country—and at times put their life and limb in mortal danger.

Veteran suicide is a vexed issue. It is a big issue and the whole coalition is very aware of it. The health ministry, the Prime Minister, the health minister, the veterans' affairs minister, the defence minister and the minister responsible for defence procurement are all in unison—we are trying to improve the situation around veteran suicide. It is a really well-analysed problem. In fact, in the broader community, there are more people who fall victim to suicide than die in road accidents. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has recently issued a report about that. In 2016 to 2018, the age adjusted rate of suicide in serving males whilst they're in the forces was 37 per cent lower than in the general Australian population. That just goes to show you the strength of the camaraderie and the clear role and definition of what service is when people are in the services. In that same period, 2016-18, the age adjusted rate of suicide in the Reserve forces amongst males was even lower—47 per cent lower than the general Australian male population. But where it comes unstuck is when they leave the services. Ex-serving males, who are discharged from service, had similar rates to Australian males. But ex-serving males who discharged from service on medical grounds were a group that had higher rates of suicide than Australian males. Amongst serving Australian female servicewomen, the same applies. I think amongst serving females who have been discharged it's something like 115 per cent higher, particularly those that have had medical discharges. So that's a really important statistic, because of all the programs that we have in place to support veterans and help them adjust to leaving the service and finding a meaningful role outside the services, it is really important that those at greatest risk get the most attention.

It is my great pleasure to have used my medical career for the betterment of the electorate by having a medically trained person in this building. With the 3,000 plus veterans who live in the beautiful Lyne electorate, I have the utmost respect and always try to support them. Whether it's an RSL function, it's a Soldier On function, or if it's a Vietnam veterans event, I try and get to it.

This legislation has come in for some criticism from people on the other side because it's not a full royal commission, but, most importantly, you've got to realise that this is a rolling royal commission. The commissioner for veteran suicide will have the powers, the inquisitorial powers, like those a royal commission would have. Royal commissions cost, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars. They shine a really bright light, like a blowtorch, on whatever issue they're looking into. They come out with an extensive report. As the months and the years roll by—this is not necessarily on any hypothetical royal commission into veteran suicide but this is about all royal commissions—the intensity and the focus goes and then the things fade into the distance. Whereas this is an ongoing problem. Having a commissioner who's there the whole time to inquire and analyse, both retrospectively and prospectively, and to see what methods, what programs, what can be done differently to reduce the numbers of veteran suicides, particularly amongst that high-risk cohort—those that are discharged but discharged on medical grounds—that is where we really can get the biggest input.

As you probably recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been a regular at Pollie Pedal. I think this year's Pollie Pedal event was about my eighth. For the last 3½ years—I say 3½ years because due COVID we had a reduced, minimalist Pollie Pedal three or four weeks ago—the recipient of the funds raised for Pollie Pedal has been Soldier On. That is one of the many organisations that are trying to support people who have been in the services who are having trouble adjusting to their life. For people in a very regimented company or institution like the Army, Navy or Air Force everything is defined. There are strict boundaries. People go in at a very young age. People have been on campaigns together. The training is sometimes incredibly rigorous. There are mind games. There are physical games. There are bombs. There are unknown enemies. There are unknown risks. There are things that you and I can't dream of going through. Then when you leave and it's all gone—all that solid formation of your life, your role, your definition, your standing amongst your peers—it all evaporates, and that can be really tragic for some people because they don't have the coping mechanisms. It's no reflection on them. That's just part of the human frailty. Then there are some people who have seen horrible things and have had post-traumatic stress disorder, and those sorts of things linger for ages.

All the commission will be able to do is to look into every one of these past deaths, prospectively what's happening, make inquiries, force the production of evidence and information, just like a royal commissioner. So I think it's actually a better solution to an ongoing problem, rather than having the big hoopla, the big fanfare, a report and then things tend to fade away.

I know DVA has changed their processes. In this building in my time here we've changed it so that anyone who served a day in the armed forces is able to access psychological and psychiatric support. There are all these other transition mechanisms that we've got teaching people how to use the skills they've learnt in the forces and apply them to a different industry. We've got support groups. We've got support for families. We've got so many initiatives that will make it better for people who leave the forces. Hopefully we will see reduced depression, reduced incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder. All these servicemen and women who leave the forces leave with huge skills, which are great for the economy. But sometimes it's just connecting the dots and getting them together and then they take off and they launch into their second career.

What I have learnt on the Pollie Pedal because we have people who have served that come on the Pollie Pedal with us is that they're rock-solid people. They support their friends. Many of them have helped me up many mountains. This athletic, svelte physique that you're familiar with is actually not that athletic these days, but I love cycling and I feel really empowered that by raising funds for this great organisation we're getting help for a lot more people than are on the Pollie Pedal with us. But that's just a small thing. The big thing is all the legislation, all the funding, all those other initiatives that I have mentioned that are going to make a tangible benefit to our servicemen and women and their families. Hopefully, in the coming years, as we see this commission and commissioner doing their work and all these initiatives that we have rolled out in the last three or four years and that DVA have been doing for more than that, trying to change the culture of how service men and women move on to their non-service career, things will be better.

We have an aim to lower suicide around the whole nation to as close to zero as possible. But, with this commission and with the support and all this legislation and funding that goes with it, I hope that we will see a really tangible and physical reduction in the scourge of people losing their life as a victim of suicide. I think all the families that have been touched by these tragedies and people who have supported friends and who have been in the services with them will really appreciate this bit of legislation. It is different, yes. It's not a cop-out. I think it's a bespoke response to an ongoing long-term problem which will need constant management, constant supervision and support, and tweaking around the edges. I commend this series of bills to the House.

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

The National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 is a very important piece of legislation and, whilst at the outset we in the Labor Party will reserve our ultimate position until we see the outcome of the Senate inquiry, we would advocate and have advocated for a royal commission and we will continue to do so, for the range of reasons that have been put here by other members in their contributions today.

I want to acknowledge at the very outset the contributions, particularly that I have heard this morning from the member for Pearce and the member for Braddon as well as that, of course, from the member for Clark, all of whom are former serving men, and we'll later here from my friend, the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, who is also a former serving officer and who has been a driver behind Labor's position to advocate for a royal commission. But I just need to say that I thought the contributions from the member for Herbert and the member for Braddon were particularly poignant. I think it would be important to all of those who have listened to their contributions to understand how much better we are in this place by having the experience of people such as they who have served in the Australian military and by hearing their own experience. We heard from the member for Pearce, the unfortunate victim of an IED, and then the role of the member for Braddon in dealing with a suicide in a unit for which he was responsible. And then there were the arrangements which needed to be entered into not only around dealing with the deceased person but with the team. I think that, when we contemplate these things—I stand here as a former Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and a former Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Particularly during my time in this place and previously, having had that experience—and I've said this before—those of us who have not put on the uniform and served in the way our comrades have here cannot really understand the circumstances of our serving men and women. We have a program here that gives people the opportunity to experience a week a year working with defence personnel and being involved in units and activities, but we cannot ever understand, unless we're in those shoes, what it means to put that uniform on knowing full well that you might end up dead.

What we have heard today from the experiences that have been related to us by the member for Herbert and the member for Braddon—it was a great privilege to have heard from them—is significant for us. I hope it is significant for the whole of the Australian community to understand what it means, having heard them, to be wearing that uniform and what the outcomes can be.

I've spoken many times with my friend the member for Solomon and with other serving and ex-serving personnel over many years. There is an absolute frustration with our failure to be able to really comprehend and understand why it is that the suicide rates for ex-serving men and women are as high as they are. As the member for Lyne pointed out, the suicide rate for people serving is less than that of the general population, yet ex-servicemen are 21 per cent more likely to die by suicide than their counterparts, as the AIHW report indicates to us. For serving women the rate is twice that of the general female population. I don't know the real numbers, but we know that since the end of the 1990s, when we had the defence commitment to Timor-Leste and then the subsequent commitments to the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have had tens of thousands of Australian men and women in uniform serve overseas, many doing multiple deployments—eight, nine, ten—particularly relevant for people in the special forces. I always pondered what impact those successive deployments might have on the health and wellbeing of those serving men and women once they left the Defence Force.

I can't attribute a reason for every one of the 465 deaths that have occurred over the period 2001 to 2018. It would be salutary to understand what the rates of suicide were for the decade prior to that. What I do know is that it is incumbent upon us to find out. That's why the royal commission is so important, and that's why Labor have been advocating for a royal commission in the way we have.

As the member for Lyne pointed out, and as I've just explained, the suicide rate for serving men and women is a lot less than it is for the general population. Indeed, the suicide rate for Reserve males was even less than it was for full-time serving men and women, and still less than the general population. What we know is—the member for Lyne made this observation—the suicide rate for those discharged on medical grounds was over three times higher than for those discharged voluntarily. We need to understand why that is. It's also the case that the suicide rate for those who are discharged for other involuntary reasons—they may have been kicked out—is also significantly higher than for those who are voluntarily discharged. Significantly, and surprisingly to me, the suicide rate for those who'd served in the Army was less than for ex-serving males who'd served in the Navy. Indeed, the suicide rate for ex-serving men who'd served in the Air Force was only half that for those who'd served in the Navy and significantly less than for those who'd served in the Army.

These issues need to be properly explored in a detailed way. We know that serving in the Defence Force is really a young person's game. Despite the longevity of service of both the member for Clark, the member for Braddon and my friend the member for Solomon—I think he had 12 or 13 years in service—it really is a young person's game. The average length of service is somewhere around seven years. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can imagine that people who enlist at the age of 18, 19 or 20 are done and dusted by their mid- to late 20s. So it's no surprise that the suicide rate for those under 30 is significantly higher than it is for those over 30. When we think about the impact that has on the community, on the families—how sad it is—then we need to have a way of finding out what happened. That's why this royal commission proposal is so important.

The issue of transition out of uniform into the civilian community is going to be different for different individuals. It's been perplexing now for many years. We can put in place all the support structures—and we should, and I'm pleased to say that the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence have been working strongly and collaboratively together to ensure that happens—but we still can't explain why it is that people leave and don't make use of the support services that are available to them, yet clearly that's the case. So, of all the people who have been involuntarily discharged, what happens to them? How do we keep a connection with them? How do we make sure that they, and those who are medically discharged as well, are okay? What ongoing relationships are there? We've got Soldier On, the RSL and a whole range of other organisations that we'd like them to be attracted to and talk to, and many do, but clearly not enough. The sadness that's put on the community by these poor people taking their own lives: how can we accept the notion that it's like that? We can't do that. We need to support the member for Braddon, who acknowledged his own PTSD. That's a brave statement. There are so many like him. They need to know, as these men know, that they have our support, but there are so many who don't. We need to be able to demonstrate somehow that it's okay to cry for help, it's okay to seek assistance, and that assistance is available. It is available but, for whatever reason, we've still got unacceptable suicide rates amongst ex-serving men and women.

It's a great privilege and honour to serve in this place, and that privilege and honour carries with it a responsibility. That responsibility is to do the very best we can for the people of Australia and, in this case, most importantly, those who are prepared to put on the uniform and defend us with their lives. We have a responsibility to them and their families. It is not acceptable for us to turn away. I know we're not, and I acknowledge that there is strong bipartisan interest in and support for dealing with these issues. It's just that we have a different view about the merits of the commissioner as opposed to the merits of a royal commission. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon all of us in this place to do whatever we possibly can, and are able to do, to work together to fix this problem. I am sure, if we are prepared to do that, we can. But it does require motivation, it requires sincerity and it requires respect. If we show that respect to those men and women in uniform, we can achieve the outcome we all want.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we are discussing this bill, the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020, an inquest is underway in Sydney into the death of Sergeant Ian Turner. According to the reports of the inquest that I have been following, Sergeant Turner had enlisted in 2000 and been deployed seven times to Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor. He took part in combat operations for nearly three years. The evidence being given is distressing. The evidence from his family, his doctors and his own letters indicate he was overwhelmed by PTSD, depression, anxiety and drug and alcohol dependency in the months before he took his own life in July 2017. He sought treatment at various places over the years, including at St John of God hospital in North Richmond, which is in my electorate and has a special focus on defence member and veteran mental illness treatment.

This coronial inquest and so many others give us some insight into the treatment veterans and Defence Force personnel can access, how they transition into civilian life, how mental illness is treated within that cohort and how the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs each operate in these situations. What they don't do is bring together all of those isolated cases and look for the way forward at a broader policy level. Nor do they have the power to make anyone make any changes. That is why it is so important for this parliament to be looking at these matters. It's absolutely important to the communities that I represent in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. The presence of St John of God in our community and the large number of local staff who work at that hospital, combined with the Richmond and Glenbrook RAAF bases and the past and present personnel who live locally, means there is a really strong awareness of the need for things to change in the way that we support defence personnel and veterans who struggle with their mental health. There is a strong recognition that we need to change things so they don't kill themselves.

I know from the conversations that I've had with personnel and veterans within my community, where they sometimes do disclose their own challenges or talk about those who have lost their struggles, that this is a very real issue. I've also spoken with veterans and their advocates from the RSL who have been guiding people through the processes of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I'll never forget one young man who was applying for assistance to transition into civilian life and move on with his career plans. He brought me his file, which was at least 40 centimetres thick, and he was in the early stages of trying to get the assistance that he needed. He was coping with those documents and having to provide more and more reports and documents, all while battling the challenges of mental health issues that were as a result of his service. I looked at that pile and shook my head and just wondered, 'How could we have let it come to this?'

The overwhelming nature of dealing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs is a common theme when we're talking about suicide within this community, and it struck a chord with me when Julie-Ann Finney—the mother of David, who died last year—who has been such a fierce advocate for a royal commission, said:

The claims process is so difficult and so complex and so long-term that by that time they're not coping and we're ending up with all these suicides …

The wait for appropriate treatment, the stigma about even disclosing mental health problems, the myriad issues that contribute to the loss of a life: these are the things that do need to be exposed publicly, not behind closed doors. And families need to be able to share their stories, as do those who have survived suicide attempts. In fact, they have some of the best insights for us to learn from. What stopped them? What actually worked?

The latest data is another horrible reminder of the extent of this issue. The most recent data that I saw was from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. It releases an annual update. There were 465 suicide deaths of serving and recently discharged Defence Force personnel in Australia between 2001 and 2018. We know that those currently serving in the armed forces full time, or in the reserves, are considerably less likely to die by suicide than men in the general population. But, among ex-serving men, the figure jumps considerably, to 21 per cent more likely than other Australian men, so that it's 28 deaths per 100,000. While the rate of suicide amongst ex-serving women is lower than for men, it is still more than twice the rate of women in the general population. We sometimes forget these women who have served their country in just the same way men have; they are suffering, too. The report also shows—which we know and this parliament knows well, as it is often the case—that men who are discharged for medical reasons are more likely to die by suicide than men who voluntarily discharge. Hence our raising these issues time and again in this place, on both sides of the parliament.

For those reasons, Labor and I supported the calls last year from families and advocates for a royal commission into veterans suicide. We were disappointed that the government didn't. When the government made its announcement of a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention earlier this year, we cautiously welcomed it as a step in the right direction, if not ideal. What's happened in the nine months since then is that many of the families whose sons and daughters have, tragically, taken their own lives have increasingly become worried about the powers of a national commissioner—that it won't be, as the government has claimed, better than a royal commission. My view is that a permanent body like a national commissioner would be much better informed by a royal commission being held, and that is what we will continue to urge this government to do. We will work through the details of the national commissioner, but, fundamentally, a royal commission will remain one of our principles. Only a royal commission can, for example, have absolutely unambiguous powers to hold public hearings, to summon witnesses, to compel the production of evidence, to pursue disciplinary proceedings, to refer charges of criminal or official misconduct to the appropriate authorities and to make recommendations for compensation.

I have to say I was a bit concerned earlier today to hear the member for Lyne say that a royal commission is a big hoopla and then things just fade away. We don't think of royal commissions in that way, and I really hope those opposite don't either. Look at what has come out of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—a truly significant process for the people who experienced child sexual abuse within institutions. And we are still, with them, fighting through to ensure that the compensation they need emotionally and financially is delivered to them.

I certainly hope it's not the attitude that the other side of this parliament has when I think about the current royal commissions underway. There's the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. That needs to lead to genuine changes, as does the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, which is crucial to communities like mine who suffered so much in the last summer bushfires. And then there's the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. There's no way we will let that be anything other than a fundamental changing point—a place where we can finally fix a system that is so flawed and is letting down so many people. That's the sort of power a royal commission can have. My view is that the families of people who have suffered mental illness that lead to suicide deserve the respect of this place—that is, to put it before a royal commission.

I think it goes to one of the key differentiators of what we would like to see to what the government's proposing and that is that a royal commission can provide closure, healing and restorative justice for the Defence and veteran community and their families. I'm sure nearly everyone in this place will have had conversations with family members of people who've served in the Defence Force. I haven't recently spoken to a family member who has lost someone, but I have recently spoken to family members who can see the toll that serving in the Defence Force has taken on their child—for example, a grown man paying the price for the choices that he made—that we asked him to make—to serve this country and to be prepared to defend and to die for his country. When he comes back home, what his family deserves and expects is that we support him to live, and to live a rich life beyond his service in the Defence Force.

I believe only a full royal commission can really help us pull together the threads that are needed with the resources. We're talking of the financial resources that come with a royal commission and of the time frame that it brings with a clear start date and a clear end date. One of the concerns I have, when I look at the coronial inquests that happen into the individual cases of people who commit suicide having left the Defence Force, is that this national commission will end up being not much more than a glorified federal coroner. That would be a real lost opportunity.

Let's think about how we could move forward about this. The devil will be in the detail, which is why we have committed to having the Senate look at the detail of this to, most importantly, work through with the people who have fought to have their voices heard, like Julie-Ann Finney, the Bird family and other people whose children have taken their own lives, especially those who have battled with the DVA over a long period of time. The detail that we look at in the legislation will be absolutely key.

We also think there should be further genuine consultation with stakeholders. They should be able to scrutinise the proposal. I meet with, for instance, the advocates who are part of Windsor RSL. They are those who support families going through all sorts of processes with the DVA. These are people who have lived experience not only of being in the Defence Force but also of trying to navigate the complexities of getting assistance for people who are transitioning and have left the forces. They have extraordinary insights into things that can really make a difference. They don't often get their voices heard in a coronial inquest, but a royal commission would give them a place to do that. In lieu of a royal commission, a Senate inquiry into this bill will provide an opportunity for them to give us their insights. And that would allow us to show the community that, as a parliament, we are genuine in wanting to tackle this scourge of suicide. It really is a blight on our name as a parliament that we allow this to go ahead without doing absolutely everything in our powers to do.

There is still time for the Prime Minister to reconsider his view and to allow there to be a royal commission. It isn't too late. Having to appoint an interim and temporary national commissioner without a full terms of reference is obviously difficult. Whoever becomes the permanent commissioner would be so empowered by the findings of a royal commission. It would create a terms of reference for that commission that would unquestionably have the support of the veteran community and of this place. So I would urge the Prime Minister to consider that. We want to work in a bipartisan way on this matter. It's a very synergistic coincidence, I suppose, that today is headspace day. I heard the member for Ryan speaking about headspace yesterday. We know the lengths we need to go to to encourage young people to seek help early. We need to look and see what we can do so that veterans and those serving in the defence forces are able to seek help.

We remain absolutely committed to a royal commission, whether the Prime Minister changes his mind or not. It's what defence members deserve, it's what veterans deserve and it's what their families deserve. We ask so much of them. They are prepared to defend us with their lives. And we do have a responsibility to make sure that, when we bring them home, they stay alive.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to pay tribute to all of the contributions to this debate that have preceded me, particularly those of my Labor colleagues, who continue to prosecute the case for a royal commission into veteran suicide, and it is to that amendment that I wish to lend my support today. I am very pleased to rise and speak on the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020 and cognate bill following those earlier contributions.

A lot has been said over many months now of the merits of a royal commission into veteran suicides, and I acknowledge the work of the shadow minister, the member for Blair, outlined in his earlier contribution, mapping out some of that history. It is absolutely worth repeating some of the terribly sobering statistics that should shame this parliament into calling for a royal commission. We know that since 2001, for example, we have lost at least 10 times more defence personnel to suicide than we lost in Afghanistan—10 times more. We also know that our serving and veteran suicide rate is not diminishing. It is growing. All of the numbers, all of the indicators, are going in the wrong direction. It's doubled from 19 in 2001 to 42 in 2017 and then 33 in 2018. So this is a very worrying trajectory. One suicide is devastating, but to see a quite significant increase now, year after year, of ex-service men and women suiciding is deeply worrying. We know also that, if nothing changes, if we remain on that trajectory that I just brought to the attention of the House, we would risk losing another 600 veterans to suicide and have 6½ thousand more plan or try to take their own lives in the next seven years. That's what the estimated figures are. So I would suggest that anyone faced with that kind of evidence would be deeply moved to really bring out all stocks to put a stop to that tragic and senseless loss of human life and potential.

We know that the transition from uniformed life into civilian life is challenging, and I, having sat on a number of inquiries in my parliamentary life to date, know that we still have so much to learn about understanding that transition more thoroughly. I don't think anybody in this space should pretend that we have understood those challenges that ex-service men and women face in the transition to civilian life. We know that our losses are greater than the UK veteran suicide rate, for example, and, unlike Australia, however, their trajectory is going down. So there are certainly lessons to be learnt there. Comparing our veteran suicide rate with other countries shows that there are a wide range of possible outcomes for the journey from service life into civilian life. This could partly be explained by the varying levels of post-reintegration veteran support services and different policies that exist. Among other things, a royal commission could absolutely investigate best practice to look at those other international jurisdictions—to investigate what is best practice and find out very clearly what is working and not working.

So that's what we do know about veteran suicide today. We are on a trajectory that should shock and alarm each and every one of us in this House. What we don't know, as the member for Blair pointed out, is equally disturbing. I know that there are many ex-service men and women in my community of Newcastle who have reached out for improved services in this area of mental health and suicide. There are men who have dedicated their lives to providing terrific peer support amongst veterans communities, but the level of unmet need continues to grow.

I'm the daughter of a Vietnam veteran. I see what PTSD does to families at a very close range. I know that this is deep—that so many families like mine are affected in this way, and that the more resourcing we have the better. I know we're on very limited time here, so I will try to wrap this up with this very personal plea to the Prime Minister and members of government. I've been listening very closely to the debates that proceeded me, and I was nervous to hear one of the government contributions refer to a royal commission as just events that come and go, and that the reason the government wanted to argue for a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention was because there was a greater level of permanency. I would caution government members from referring to a royal commission in that way. Again, I'm the member for Newcastle; I have seen the difference a royal commission made when we did a deep investigation into horrific child sexual abuse in institutions. I have seen the lasting legacy and the deep and necessary reforms that come as a result of royal commissions. There is nothing to be scared of and everything to be gained by shining a big light into areas that people may find uncomfortable. It is absolutely necessary in order to bring about the restorative justice for these men and women and their families. So, Prime Minister, it is not too late to change your mind and I beg you to show faith with the veterans and their families and to establish a royal commission, so that we can get to the bottom of veteran suicides and deliver some real accountability and justice for our veterans and their families once and for all. This issue will not go away. The numbers are all going in the wrong direction. Ultimately, Labor wants to have a bipartisan position on this important issue. I beg the Prime Minister to call a royal commission today.