Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Don’t look too shocked, Senator Scullion; obviously, they are pre-election announcements—to increase the level of support for many veterans and war widows in Australia. The announcement, firstly by the opposition, of the intention to generate fairer indexations for payments made to disabled war veterans is one that the Democrats have called for for a long period. Indeed, I have moved amendments in this chamber in the past—I should acknowledge, sometimes with Labor support—to achieve that end. I think one of them may have passed the Senate a few years ago, before the government had the numbers in the Senate, but it was not accepted by the government in the other place. Eventually, we had to not insist on it to enable the wider legislation that it was a part of to pass. But certainly many parts of the veterans’ community have been pushing for this for a long time. That pledge, if you like, was matched and, indeed, bettered in some respects by the Prime Minister this week. Again, the Democrats welcome that announcement from the government. I have regularly said in this place that we need to do better in providing support for veterans throughout Australia. The service provided by veterans is unique and, in some respects, there are unique aspects of the nature of the assistance that needs to be provided to those who have suffered injury, harm or who have been directly wounded through their war service. It does need to be better recognised, including through fairer indexation of the compensation payments and the pension payments available to them.

It is a positive development. Obviously a cynic could say: ‘We’re suddenly hearing these pledges on the eve of an election,’ and it is understandable to make those sorts of comments. But, frankly, that does not worry me, and I do not think it really worries the veterans’ community terribly. They have been calling for these changes for a long time. The promises have now been made by both the major parties, and that is part of how the democratic process works. You provide that pressure and if the incentive, pending an election, helps focus people’s minds sufficiently to provide the pledges, the promises and the commitments then that is part of the democratic process. And if it produces the outcome that is desired at the end of it all then that is a good thing. Certainly, I give a commitment from the Democrat side of things that we will continue to provide that pressure to ensure that the pledges and promises actually become reality via legislated, locked in l-a-w law amendments after the election.

Indeed, I would say and certainly would offer the Democrats’ support for an approach for the government to put that in place before the election. There is an understandable cynicism amongst people across the community that is not particularly partisan, and I think it applies to all politicians across the board, that we make lots of promises before elections and do not always deliver after elections. One way of avoiding that cynicism is to bring it through straightaway and, given some of the other measures the government has managed to pull together and push through this parliament in a very short time frame, it is a reasonable thing to suggest that putting it through the parliament before the end of next week, so that we can be guaranteed that the measures will be put in place before the election, is something that would be appropriate and, in this case, it would be rushed legislation that the Democrats would support. We, quite rightly, frequently complain about rushed legislation where there has not been time for adequate scrutiny. In this area, where there have been plenty of calls for action for a long period of time, we have even had amendments passed previously by the Senate that would have implemented it, had it been accepted by the House of Representatives. There is not the need for that scrutiny and it could be done in that time frame. So I would make that call, which I think the shadow minister in this area, Mr Griffin, has also called for, to legislate now in this area. That is something I would also support and agree with.

Having made those positive comments, there is always, of course, the follow-up, which is the area where more still needs to be done. This is not an area of just saying that you give people something and they want more. I am calling for more to be provided to bring others in the community up to the newer matched standards that have finally been promised by both the major parties. I am talking about those of the veterans’ community in the wider sense of the word, which are those who have served in peacetime. They do not have war related service and war related wounds, injuries or harm, but they still have service related conditions and service related injuries. We have a very big gap in our military compensation schemes and our veterans’ entitlements between those whose injuries were sustained in what is deemed to be warlike service and those who can receive totally identical wounds, injuries and harm in peacetime service or in service that is not seen as war related. I understand why that distinction is made but, frankly, if you have a disability or a health condition that has come about as a result of your putting your hand up to serve your country in the armed forces, then I am not convinced that the size of the distinction in the assistance that is provided to people is justified. It strikes me, as one who has spoken on this issue a number of times and has met with a number of Australians who have suffered very severe harm, injuries or wounds as a consequence of serving their country, that the service, assistance, compensation and support they get is inadequate.

I would make the point that I am convinced that, not only does this need to be addressed because of the inadequacy of the support provided to these people as individuals, but this is a key reason why we have such problems with retention of people in the armed forces. It only takes one serious injury, in one unit, amongst one group, with one person—if they are not given a fair go, if they are not treated properly, if they are made to fight and kick and scratch for every bit of support, then not only does their family get very browned off and let everybody know in the wider community as well as in the military community, but all their mates in the services see what has happened to that one person and think, ‘Gee, that could have been me. I do not want that to happen to me,’ and they get out of there.

I know of one former defence person who suffered a very serious brain haemorrhage, through heatstroke, whilst training for the SAS in northern Australia. He was a fit young man in his 20s and an elite soldier training for the SAS and he suffered that very serious injury, which will cause lifelong disability as a consequence. That condition happened to him a few years ago now, and my understanding is that not a single one of his mates who were in the same division as him at the time is still in the armed forces. Now, it may not be that every single one of them left because of that incident, but I can be absolutely certain that a fair few of them left or were influenced because of that. It has a big impact on our retention in the armed forces, which is a continuing problem.

The compensation under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act does discriminate between war service and peacetime service. The people who are incapacitated due to peacetime service have a range of different and lesser situations. They have a lower income that is taxed; they usually, except in very rare circumstances, do not get access to a white card or a gold card to assist with medical costs; they usually have to undergo regular reviews of their medical conditions regardless of the level of incapacity; they usually do not get access to legal aid to appeal compensation entitlement rejection; and they are not eligible to participate in many of the other DVA programs as well. There is a significantly lower amount of support provided to people even if they have exactly the same condition. I will not go through the case studies I know of, beyond saying that there are many Australians who have suffered serious health consequences as a direct result of injuries caused by their peacetime service, and I think we should do better for them. I would call on both parties not to forget about them as well.