David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to endeavour to respond to some of the points made by Senator Ronaldson. Firstly, I will turn my attention to the question of the explanatory memor­andum. As I comprehend it, the Senate com­mittee suggested that additional information be inserted into the explanatory memor­andum to make it clear that established offsetting practices will not change as a result of the amendments. The additional information also includes an explanation of the interaction between chapter 19 of the Guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions and the offsetting provisions. It is my understanding that ex-service organisa­tions are aware that the government is now making changes and that in large part those changes reflect requests of government by those organisations.

As to the mystery of when and how the addendum came to be lodged, I cannot really assist Senator Ronaldson except to say that I understand it was lodged with the Table Office on Friday. I will allow Senator Ronaldson to pursue the rest of the mystery as he sees fit.

In response to the opposition's allegation that the government has failed to fully justify the need for a change I would point out that the rationale behind the amendments has been explained in the budget materials, in the explanatory memorandum and at the committee hearings. I will reiterate that the amendments will not change the operation of the offsetting provisions but merely clarify and affirm the longstanding policy of numerous governments in relation to offsetting disability pension compensation. The clarification of the legislation will assist veterans, their representatives and others involved in such matters to understand how the offsetting arrangements operate.

It is critical for the government to place on the record that the proposed amendments will not and cannot result in a double offset as has been alleged. When the Guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions is used, the offsetting provisions cannot apply in respect of that impairment. The operation of the Guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensionsdoes not fully cover all cases in which individuals have different conditions attributed to an incapacity. In essence, the operation of that guide covers only one potential set of circumstances. The proposed amendments are necessary to deal with circumstances that are not dealt with under that guide and in which it is not possible to use that guide.

As for the assertion that the government did not consult with the ex-service community prior to incorporating these amendments, let me first make the point that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has engaged in appropriate consultation with the ex-service community in relation to the full Federal Court's decision in Commonwealth v Smith. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has consulted with the ex-service community from budget night onwards about the proposed amendments to the offsetting provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the confidentiality restrictions associated with budget measures and legislation.

On the question of the computer software and the changing of systems, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is committing staff and information technology resources to improving existing policy, procedural and other resource material concerning the application of the offsetting provisions. This work would be taking place regardless of the proposed amendments now being considered. This work includes the improve­ments of existing systems and the creation of better tools for staff to manage claims for which offsetting is required. It will also work to improve communication with affected clients and interested stakeholders. The provision of policy guidance material to staff, particularly in areas of complexity such as this one, is longstanding common practice.