Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

In 2015, the Greens—myself—initiated the first Senate inquiry into veterans' mental health, which I understand Senator Lambie and others in this chamber also participated in. That inquiry went over nearly nine months and went all around the country. We heard some evidence and put in place some recommendations. I am glad there has been an additional Senate inquiry into veteran suicide.

Senator Lambie interjecting—

I'll take that interjection. It is a sad fact that a number of recommendations of numerous Senate inquiries haven't been taken up, including this one. This one is particularly acute and very sensitive. I am glad that Senator Lambie hasn't allowed the Senate to take its foot off the proverbial throat of DVA and let these issues go unresolved, and I am glad that we have some good legislation here in front of us today. I know from that inquiry and from hearing evidence all around the country, and I also know from my father, who is a Vietnam veteran, and my godfather and many of their circle of friends and the advocates that I know well in Tasmania who work at the RSL and work with DVA, that this area is very sensitive. It is extremely complex, but it's also very sensitive. That makes it a potential powder keg if we don't get it right.

So I think it is important to point out that this bill today is a response to the overwhelming complexity of the veterans' entitlement system. It will replicate the existing Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, which applies to all ADF members and veterans with service prior to 1 July 2004, so that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has full control of the act that currently sits with the Minister for Employment. As it currently stands, as Senator Farrell pointed out, there are three acts which govern pensions, compensation, rehabilitation treatment and other benefits for veterans, ADF members and their families. These are the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, or VEA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, commonly known as SRCA; and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, commonly known as MRCA. These acts cover different types of service in different periods of time, and often veterans and ADF personnel are subject to multiple acts. May I say, also from my experience, that this probably biased them towards using one or two legal firms who specialise in this area and know these areas very well. While they do a very important job, I think it's quite important that we still move to simplify the legislation so that it's clearer for all stakeholders.

According to the government this bill will pave the way for reforms that are intended to make life easier for those seeking access to entitlements. It will also allow the minister to recognise the unique nature of military service that may not be appropriate for civilians under the act. In creating this bill, the government has included section 121B, also known as the Henry VIII clause, which will ensure that no person is worse off under the act.

Let me address a few reasons the veterans' entitlement system is a mess. It is a Byzantine system that is currently very difficult for veterans to use. I think the fact that it's a mess is something that all sides of politics agree on. The overlapping legislation governing compensation and rehabilitation is a burden on veterans, on their advocates, many of them volunteers, and even on the Department of Veterans' Affairs itself and, by default, the Department of Defence, which also liaises with the veterans' affairs department on a number of these very sensitive, important issues.

Veterans face a complex system where, for example, injuries suffered by the same person at different points in time or during different types of service may be covered by different compensation legislation. During the recent inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, Colonel David Jamison from the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations told the committee:

… we believe a significant factor contributing to the problem lies in the legislative framework on which support to veterans is based. The three rehabilitation and compensation schemes result in a very complicated system that sets up an adversarial claims process and a bureaucratic structure that many see as complicated and unfriendly towards veterans seeking support.

I will underline that word 'adversarial', because nearly all of the evidence I've heard in my five years in this place, including three years covering this portfolio, is that it is adversarial. Certainly Senator Lambie has been a very vocal proponent of solving that problem.

It is abundantly clear from social media groups and from talks with veterans of more recent conflicts that they feel alienated and see the system as biased against them. The veteran suicide inquiry also raised concerns about the statements of principles which are used to determine whether or not a person is eligible for compensation. Witnesses testified that many veterans believe these statements of principles are not up to date, are not flexible, are too complex for non-expert people to use with ease and are designed to hinder rather than assist veterans.

The case of Army veteran Jesse Bird is a tragic illustration of the impacts our current compensation system has on those seeking assistance. Many in this chamber would have read that Jesse took his own life just a few months ago, weeks after losing a claim for permanent impairment he had been pursuing for years. He served in Afghanistan, where he had been shot at and exposed to bomb blasts from IEDs. He had a close friend, Private Benjamin Ranaudo, who was killed by one of these blasts. On his return to Australia, Jesse suffered from PTSD, associated anxiety and depression and was unable to hold down a job. Although the DVA accepted his conditions were caused by his military service, it said his condition was not unstable or severe enough to warrant permanent impairment. I understand the minister has met with the Bird family recently and that the department is conducting an inquiry into Jesse's case and his death. We must make sure that Jesse's situation doesn't arise again.

The problems with veterans aren't just limited to compensation. We heard during the inquiry into the digital readiness bill earlier this year that veterans face unreasonably long wait periods to be reimbursed the costs of any claims. On top of this, rates of entitlement are inconsistent and arbitrary. Application and assessment processes are a crazy maze. For many veterans, the bureaucracy of the Department of Veterans' Affairs is a barrier to getting what they are entitled to. All parties—and I think this is actually one issue that does bring together all political sides in this place—should be working together with the veteran community to create a better system for those who serve Australia.

The Greens in response to this mess have consistently said we would undertake a root-and-branch review of the veterans' entitlements system. This review would determine whether current entitlements are sufficient and whether current eligibility criteria are fair, including access to health cards, disability pensions, housing and superannuation arrangements. We have been pushing this since my predecessor Penny Wright from South Australia had the veterans portfolio. My former colleague Senator Ludlam did some great work around nuclear veterans and worked with Senator Lambie on getting them access to the gold card.

The review would also recommend a redesign of the entitlements process to make it more legible and accessible and recommend an overhaul of the delivery of support services. Complaints about DVA are still on the rise, which is an indicator that the system is still failing. The review of service delivery should consider assigning each veteran a liaison officer, which was one of the recommendations of the first Senate inquiry into veterans' mental health, to act as a single point of contact to navigate the system. As Senator Lambie mentioned earlier, the recommendations of that inquiry were well over 12 months ago and it is disappointing that that simple solution still hasn't been implemented. The Greens also support recommendations of the inquiry into veterans' suicides that the government make a reference to the Productivity Commission to simplify the legislative framework of compensation and rehabilitation for service members and veterans.

Given the well-founded concerns about the current compensation system, the Greens will support this bill. We want things made easier for veterans. We support laying the groundwork for a simpler set of military compensation and rehabilitation arrangements. However, we don't want simplification to come if it means outcomes of the lowest common denominator for veterans. We want to make sure that in making the legislative schemes more accessible for veterans no veteran or ADF member will be worse off. For this reason we support the government's inclusion of the so-called Henry VIII clause, which was added to make sure that if there were any adverse consequences for a veteran from the passage of this bill the situation could be remedied. The clause will allow the government to make regulations, as a disallowable instrument, to modify the act introduced to parliament.

The minister has clearly stated that he does not intend for the clause to be used. It was introduced as a back-up on the off-chance that a veteran finds himself or herself disadvantaged. The government has enshrined in this bill that the Henry VIII clause can only be used to advantage veterans. Section 121B (2) states:

Before the Governor-General makes regulations under 23 subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to make the regulations to ensure that no person (except 1 the Commonwealth) is disadvantaged by the enactment of this Act.

We acknowledge that some veterans and their representative organisations have raised concerns that changes to the act will pass through disallowable instruments without adequate consultation. I understand that Senator Lambie shares these concerns and will move an amendment to section 121B. However, the Greens believe that the protections enshrined in the act will protect veterans from an erosion of their entitlements. We are also keen to make sure that there is no undue delay to any veteran who finds himself or herself worse off and the insertion of additional consultation requirements around each disallowable instrument may cause undue distress to individual veterans.

During the inquiry into this bill there were a number of serious concerns raised regarding the Department of Veterans' Affairs' lack of consultation. For example, even though the government indicated that discussion with the community about this bill began two years ago, Ex-Service Organisation Round Table members were not able to view the bill until it was introduced to parliament late last year. This meant that veterans' legitimate queries around losing access to Comcare and favourable precedents set by previous legal decisions were not addressed and were allowed to fester. It also contributed to concerns that the government will try to whittle down entitlements, by stealth, in the future. We hope the government has learnt from this experience and will conduct exhaustive consultation if and when it plans to align aspects of this bill with the MRCA. The Greens will certainly be working to make sure the principle of 'no veterans disadvantaged' is maintained and I am confident that each senator in this chamber will do the same.

In conclusion, the Greens are supportive of the positive steps to make life easier for veterans. We support reform to simplify and harmonise different legislation and claims processes for ADF members and veterans. We acknowledge concerns raised regarding the inclusion of the Henry VIII clause, but the legislation clearly states that this clause is designed to ensure that no veteran is worse off—rather than being a sneaky attempt to erode entitlements. We will, therefore, support the bill and look forward to further discussions on how we can improve the entitlement system for veterans.

The Greens, like every political party and everyone in this chamber, want to support veterans. It is essential because of the service they have provided to our country and because we have always wanted to highlight the issues of veterans, be they physical, mental or otherwise. It is a cost of service, a cost of military conflict and, ultimately, a cost of war. While we are sending our Australian personnel—our children, our uncles, our wives, our partners—off to overseas deployments, Australians must understand that the costs of those deployments go beyond military spending or unfortunate physical injuries or, sadly, deaths and casualties. When veterans, soldiers or other ADF personnel come back from their service, are discharged and go through these systems, the costs are compounded by a system that doesn't work. That cost has, sadly, been reflected in high suicide rates and more cases of mental illnesses. Australians need to understand that, if these issues aren't dealt with properly, this adds to the cost of service, and it's a reflection of the cost that war and conflict has on our nation.