Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition opposes schedule 2 in the following terms:

(2)   Schedule 2, page 10 (line 1) to page 15 (line 16), TO BE OPPOSED.

I want to talk about a number of matters today. I do have some questions for Senator Feeney, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, but I want to start the discussion on my amendment by again reiterating that the opposition strongly supports schedules (1) and (3). We do so in relation to schedule (1) because in government we had a very proud history of assistance for POWs and we do so in relation to schedule (3) because it makes eminent sense. We support the government on both of these matters.

The issue, both from the opposition's point of view and from the point of view of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee with its dissenting report, and from many within the ex-service community, is schedule (2). The onus has been placed on the government to establish why this amendment is required now. Part of that onus, quite rightly, would involve, one would have thought, discussions between the government and the ex-service community on the justification for this schedule, in particular the outcome of the Smith case and the longstanding legal position in relation to these matters, given that the government is unable to say for sure whether anyone will be or will not be adversely impacted by the measures in schedule (2). In the budget, the government said that it wanted to spend $2.7 million to put in place processes to ensure that previous requirements for offsetting and identification of potential offsetting cases were made clearer. The obvious question to be asked about this is: why not get your systems in place first? What is the mad rush to go ahead with schedule (2) now, particularly with the degree of nervousness within the ex-service community on this matter? What is the requirement to do so now?

What really worries me and the rest of the opposition, as well as other senators in this place and the ex-service community, is the fact that there has been no consultation on this. The Smith case was decided in 2009. There was no consultation with the RSL, for example, prior to the budget. Prior to the budget, there was no discussion with the RSL on the budget measure. Given that everyone knew the circumstances surrounding the Smith case, and given that it had been discussed at the roundtable and other forums before that, why not consult with the ex-service community? Why not let them have some input into it? But it was actually worse than that. Even after the budget, the government still refused to discuss this until there was a referral to the Senate committee, and only then did the government start consultation with the ex-service community.

To make matters worse, today we have learnt that the government's partners in crime in the running of this country, the Australian Greens—the Gillard-Brown government—were given the opportunity to see this revised explanatory memorandum well in advance of today's debate. Was Senator Xenophon shown that? Was the opposition shown that? Was the RSL shown that? Was the Vietnam Veterans Federation shown that? Was Legacy shown that? No, they were not. They were told that something would be coming, that there would be an amendment to the EM which would clarify it. They have not, on my understanding, to this day—certainly not of an hour and a half ago—been given the opportunity to see that amended EM. The parliamentary secretary has got to stand up here when I finish and say why the Australian Greens are deserving of this but the opposition is not. Forget the opposition! Why were the RSL, Legacy and the Vietnam Veterans Federation not given the opportunity to see this, given that the RSL attended the Senate inquiry and the Vietnam Veterans Federation, on my understanding at least, made a submission—if not, they have certainly written to me on the matter. So what is this about lack of consultation? Why is it that the spokesperson for the Australian Greens gets the opportunity to see this but the rest of us do not? On what basis does the government justify that? This is a matter of very, very significant concern to the ex-service community. They want to know that this schedule is not going to have a negative impact on anyone else and they, quite rightly, have been pursuing the government to get those guarantees. The government had the opportunity to consult on this matter. Why was my office not told the content of this revised EM?

Why did the government choose to speak to the Greens about this rather than speaking to the ex-service community, when the President of the RSL himself had taken the time to appear before that committee and expressed some very significant concerns about this matter. I will read them for the parliamentary secretary. Rear Admiral Doolan said:

The RSL view is that it is much better to have the legislation being the basis for all these matters than to have it by regulation.

That underpins the concerns of the ex-service organisation in relation to this matter.

I am sure that the Greens spokesperson felt very special getting the heads up about this. But surely the Greens felt some necessity to ensure that other people knew about it rather than doing a dirty deal with the government? What a start that is! Why not come to us and say: 'What do you think about this? You've got amendments on the table. You've had them there for some time. We know schedule 2 is an issue for you; why not come and have a talk to us about what that amended EM said?' Why not have the courtesy to go to Legacy, the RSL and others, show them the revised EM and ask for their opinion? Why not do them that courtesy?

Senator Wright interjecting—

You say you did. Are you saying, Senator, that you did or did not. If you did, I will apologise and sit down. But if you did not—