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

In the four hours since we last spoke about this matter, I have had some interesting information to hand. Clearly the matter that the parliamentary secretary raised in relation to the RSL and their lack of support for schedule 2 was correct. I also have a letter. Honourable senators will remember that basically it is the RSL, Legacy, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the Defence Force Welfare Association who have expressed concerns about schedule 2. I will read to the chamber the following letter from Tim McCombe, the President of the Vietnam Veterans Federation:

I confirm that the VVFA has not seen the complete explanatory memorandum—

I received this at 2.42 today—

Our main concern with schedule 2 is that the amendment wording would give the Repatriation Commission almost complete discretion in offsetting matters. The wording would allow it to determine almost without restriction what constitutes the elements of its decision making. It goes much further than confirming a previous practice. Whilst the wording in the explanatory memorandum may inhibit the abuse of the amendment by the Repatriation Commission, it cannot guarantee that such an abuse will not occur even now or particularly in the future. In the case of such abuse, explanatory memoranda are not consulted in tribunal and court hearings unless there is ambiguity in the wording. There is certainly no ambiguity in the wording of these amendments. Offsetting is a basic feature of our compensation system. It is far too important a process to be largely left to regulation and the goodwill of bureaucracy. We remain strongly opposed to schedule 2 of the bill in its present form.

I was then advised that at 5.01 this evening—and I remind honourable senators that we commenced debate on this matter at 10 am this morning—the Vietnam Veterans Federation received for the first time the full explanatory memorandum. What a remarkable abuse of what should be good process. This is an organisation that the parliamentary secretary knows curries no favour for anyone in politics. They play their politics hard and they play fairly. If you are doing something that they do not agree with, they will let you know. They do so without fear or favour, as the minister knows and as I know. This is not some partisan group that has entered this debate. This is a group that historically, as I said, have only acted in the best interests of their members. They are not a party-political organisation. I think they pride themselves on the fact that both sides of politics keep on accusing them of supporting the other side, which is a pretty fair indication that they are doing something right. They were not given—and I hope the Greens are listening to this—the full EM until 5.01 this evening. I said to the parliamentary secretary that he cannot possibly tell this chamber that that is appropriate. I invite him to do so when I finish.

I told the parliamentary secretary this morning that if Legacy, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the RSL were supportive of the schedule on the back of the amended explanatory memorandum then we would support schedule 2. Well, none of those organisations support this new EM having now had the opportunity to look at it. On that basis, we will not be supporting it. I now invite the Greens and their spokes­person—who apparently ticked off on this amended wording on the basis that she thought it was going to resolve some of the issues—having been told that these organisations do not support this new EM, or that it does not allay their fears, to vote against it. For the Greens to do otherwise indicates that this has been a political decision and not a policy decision. How else can it be interpreted? Their spokesperson herself said this morning that she supported this new EM on the basis that it would allay the fears of the ESOs. Well, it does not. So on that basis they cannot possibly support it. Therefore, I invite them again to support us in relation to the schedule. None of these groups support this amended explanatory memorandum. They still have the same concerns. The Defence Force Welfare Association does not support schedule 2, even with the amended EM. The RSL does not support schedule 2, even with the amended EM. The Vietnam Veterans Federation does not support schedule 2, even with the amended explanatory memorandum. Surely this chamber is not going to proceed with approval of schedule 2 while those organisations are still concerned about it.

I will give you some of the evidence that came through in the inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee into the Veterans Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011. In his evidence at the public hearing on Thursday, 11 August, Rear Admiral Ken Doolan said:

I think the current arrangements give the answer. The current arrangements are the ones with which the Returned and Services League is comfortable. We have lived with those and explained them to our members. That is why we do not see the need for schedule 2.

Senator Fawcett then asked:

With the increasing number of people deployed in operational service at the moment, obviously there is potential for an increasing number of people to require compensation. Is it your opinion that these changes to the legislation could disadvantage any currently serving members in years ahead?

To which Rear Admiral Doolan answered:

That is what we have said.

I say to the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and to the Greens spokesperson: if you vote against my amendment to remove schedule 2 you are effectively telling this chamber that you know more about this matter and have better judgement than have the RSL, the Defence Force Welfare Association and the Vietnam Veterans Federation. That is effectively what you are saying. You are saying that they do not know what they are talking about and that you are going to override their wishes on this matter.

It is worse for the Greens, the government's partners in crime. They have signed up to an amended explanatory memorandum which they say was going to resolve the issues of the ex-service organisations. Guess what? It does not. So how can you possibly provide the government with succour in relation to the schedule 2 vote? It would be an act of gross hypocrisy, were the Greens to support the government in relation to the schedule. As others have said, the government indicates on page 327 of Budget Paper No. 2:

The Government will clarify offsetting rules for veteran compensation under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA), at a cost of $2.7 million over four years.

…   …   …

The Department of Veterans' Affairs will also improve the administration of offsetting cases through case manager training and enhanced systems support.

During the public hearing, Senator Fawcett asked the department to explain their statement versus their claim and the minister's claim that the amendments affect no-one and will have no cost. It is either one of the other. If, indeed the RSL, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the Defence Force Welfare Association are right, and there will be potential impact, you cannot proceed with schedule 2.

As the parliamentary secretary knows, the amended explanatory memorandum does not have the force of the act. The act will be interpreted on the back of the plain language in the act. The EM will not in any way supersede that. The parliamentary secretary knows that as well as I do. That is the concern of the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the RSL. They know that full well, the parliamentary secretary knows that and the Greens spokesperson should know that. Get your systems in place. We support your systems, but do not, please, treat the ESOs with such contempt, when they have quite clearly indicated to you that, despite this amended EM, they are still extremely uncomfortable with this schedule. The parliamentary secretary and minister know that we do not need this schedule at this time. By the department's own words, there is not a current issue. If there is not a current issue, is this not about getting the processes right rather than changing the law, potentially to the detriment of serving men and women and ex-service men and women? When you have been alerted to the issues that the ESOs have got and you know full well that there is no urgency at all in relation to this matter, when you know full well that you are in the process of having further discussions with the department, which I presume will include the $2.7 million IT expenditure to 'improve the administration of offsetting cases through case manager training and enhanced systems support,' do that. And if you need to come back to this place for some legislative imprimatur in relation to what you find, let us talk about it then. Let us have a talk at that stage. Let us have the ESOs in a position to make some judgments about what you may or may not have found through the system and what the legislative requirements are, because no-one believes that this is required at this time. They say there will be an impact. You say there will not be. If your case is that there will not be, we do not need this schedule at this time. Get your systems in place, come back here and we will see whether this requires legislative change. As all these ESOs have said, they are not prepared to compromise a piece of legislation which they say is working at the moment for regulation which they say will not. (Time expired)