Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Hansard source

When you hear the way the rest of these senators talk about the Australian Veterans’ Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019 here, it's as though they're talking about something completely different, because they're all talking about a bill that recognises and respects veterans and their families, and I don't see that anywhere. The bill as written by the government does nothing. It does absolutely nothing. It's designed to mean nothing, it offers nothing, it says nothing and it commits nothing. In the words of one veteran, 'When you've got a mental health condition, you're in a constant battle with yourself, and then DVA makes you battle them as well.' And for some veterans, it's asking too much; it's one battle too many. They haven't got it in them. There's nothing left, because they're just an empty human shell.

The government says that this bill is about recognising and respecting our veterans. Recognising? And respecting? You get a pin, you get a card, you get a covenant. You get a bill that falls over itself to say how much we love and respect veterans and their families, how we recognise them and their service and sacrifice, how they're great and they deserve the world—but in the meantime, here's a pin.

If you really respected veterans and their families, you wouldn't send them a pin; you would send them an apology. This government has failed veterans each and every time. Veterans fight for us—all of us—and when they come home they fight the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Wow, they've got a lot to look forward to, haven't they! The review into the Department of Veterans' Affairs handling of compensation claims found that the DVA could actually be harming the mental health of veterans. Imagine going to the department that's there to help you, asking them to help you and coming out the other end worse.

And there are thousands of us. This isn't rare. This isn't only happening now and then. Nearly three out of four ex-service personnel and ADF members who transition into the Reserve have a mental health condition at some stage in their lifetime. Male veterans under 30 are twice as likely to commit suicide. Between 2014 and 2018 DVA received 10 claims for mental health conditions a day. That is 19,000 mental health condition claims. People are coming back with mental scars that run deep and they are asking for help, because we tell them that's what they should do, because we promised them help, because we care about them—supposedly. Then we withhold it and we break them. Veterans are killing themselves, and once again you want to send them pins.

It's you in the government who sends these people to fight, but when they come back you wash your hands of them. This bill doesn't even make a secret of that; you don't even try and hide it. It doesn't fix a single broken system, broken promise or broken veteran. It doesn't even try. What it does, according to the minister, is provide symbolic recognition. This bill is just about making people feel good so you guys in here can have your fuzzy wuzzy moment. Well, I'm not getting the fuzzy wuzzy, I'll be honest with you.

Clause 10 says outright that the bill 'does not create or give rise to rights or obligations'. It clearly states that. In other words, where the bill says the Commonwealth will cooperate with veterans and their family, it's just words. There's no promise. You're not legislating it. There's no promise here. It's a feel-good moment for you all in here. Where the bill says that the Commonwealth will work to resolve veterans' claims quickly, simply and fairly, once again, it's just words. If the government doesn't honour those words, too bad—there is nothing you can do about it. There are no penalties for you people in here—nothing at all—absolutely nothing.

This bill promises to recognise and respect veterans. Haven't we been doing that for—how many years now?—over 100? Haven't we been promising to do that with them already? I've heard it time and time and time again. Where the bill says the Commonwealth will cooperate with veterans and families, it's just words; it's not a promise. Where the bill says the Commonwealth will work to resolve veterans' issues, quickly, simply and fairly, it's just words.

This bill promises to recognise and respect veterans and treat them with dignity and fairness, but this promise isn't legally enforceable. There are no penalties for you people. It says to veterans, 'We promise to treat you right.' Like I said, you've been promising to do that for years; you just don't want to be held to that promise. What a shameful performance in here today. You say, 'We don't want to be held to it, but we'll make promises for you.' If you really wanted to help these veterans, you wouldn't be doing this. This is like a slap in the face to them.

What you do is what the Liberals promised in 2004 when the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs promised that the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 would be the best of both of the existing schemes. What you'd do is summon all the big wigs from business, unions, employment agencies and government and lock them in a room and say, 'We're not leaving without a plan to give veterans specific, targeted employment opportunities that are flexible enough to let veterans work and still receive treatment.' You'd push Insurance Council Australia to stop its members from deducting fees for TPD people, total and permanently disabled people, and you'd encourage income protection policies for veterans returning to work. I haven't heard of any of you trying to do that. I haven't heard of any of you trying to take Insurance Council Australia on. How's that goodwill going in here? These policies are absolutely worthless.

Veterans who try to claim after going from service to civilian employment are told they can't claim against their policies if a complaint relates to their service, because it's pre-existing or war caused. If you really want to help veterans, you'd grant veterans with operational war service a gold card for life. You're not doing any of that. You're giving veterans another card to go in the wallet, another pin to go on the jacket, another promise to be broken as soon as it costs you something to keep it. Also, you can pat yourselves on the back and make yourselves feel good.

I'm moving amendments that are going to be voted down by the government because the purpose of this bill, according to the Liberal Party and according to the National Party, is pure symbolism. That's all it is: symbolism. The Liberal Party doesn't want to be held to a lifetime of dealing with the claims of veterans because that would cost them too much to actually deliver. Apparently pins are a cheaper solution. The Nationals don't want my amendments to succeed either. The Nationals will only vote for this bill if it means they get to say they support veterans without ever having to do a thing to actually support them. They will vote against committing the Commonwealth to an ambition to treat veterans better than the way they're being treated right now. They say this bill isn't about changing things; it's about symbolism. It's not about what it means, because, without my amendments, none of this means absolutely anything. It's all about how this looks. I'm not here to make you look good—I'll be honest—especially when it comes to veterans. I'm not here to support a veterans bill that doesn't support veterans. I won't do that.

In 1917, Prime Minister Billy Hughes said:

... the care of the returned soldier is one of the functions of the Commonwealth Government ... They go out to fight our battles. We say to them: ‘When you come back we will look after you’…

That says something more solemn and profound and comprehensive than anything you can fix in this excuse of a bill, and it says it in five words. It says, 'We will look after you.' That's what you're supposed to be doing, but, no, you want to symbolise. This bill doesn't say that, does it? It doesn't respect veterans. This bill doesn't recognise their service and their sacrifice. You are kidding yourselves. It is absolutely embarrassing right now, in this chamber, to be aiming this low. Just say you'll look after them and bind yourself to it. Set that standard for yourselves and work like dogs to live up to it. If you fail to meet the standard that respect and recognition actually demands, own that failure. Own it; be honest. There's honour in trying to treat every veteran like a hero instead of a cheat. There's no honour in this bill. You're walking away from your side of the deal before you're even asked to honour it. They were sent to fight for us and we should show a bit of fight for them. That's how you show respect. So you know what you can do with your pins. I'll be honest with you.

I have a bit of time here. This is good. I just want to talk about something in clause 7. Apparently existing veterans legislation already requires DVA to act essentially in accordance with equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the claim without regard to legal technicality. This clause is about applying the legislation beneficially. There have been a number of Senate reviews, including the constant battle, and recommendations quite clearly articulate the failure of DVA to undertake its existing legislative function. So why does this bill need to again remind them that they will have to practise the act accordingly. Why? I'll tell you. You're not doing anything here.

I want to give you a case. This is very disturbing, and this has happened in the last 12 months, and apparently we're fixing the system. I'm going to bring this case up. I want to talk about a 94-year-old war veteran fighting to get a VEA-EDA pension through the AAT—with DVA using their usual lawyers to take us all down—and being forced to see four medical specialists and give evidence before the AAT. That's right: a 94-year-old veteran. But you're changing your ways! Hang on, it gets better. It gets good here; it gets better. Do you know why? Because DVA did not accept his own lifestyle self-assessment—a 94-year-old man.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

I just want to go on about the goodwill that we've got going on here and, of course, the goodwill of Veterans' Affairs as per usual—I don't see much goodwill coming out of them at all. But I want to talk about the case of a 94-year-old World War II veteran fighting to get an EDA pension through the AAT with DVA using their usual lawyers. Imagine using lawyers against a 94-year-old and being forced to see four medical specialists—once again, a 94-year-old seeing four medical specialists—and then expecting him to give evidence before the AAT. And why? Because DVA did not accept his lifestyle self-assessment—a 94-year-old doing a self-assessment. This just keeps getting better. This is not the old DVA but occurred throughout 2018, and the AAT decision was handed down in May 2019. Imagine putting that World War II veteran through so much trauma at 94 years of age, and they were doing that while they were shaping this bill of their goodwill. So, honestly, we have to ask the questions.

I also noticed that Senator McGrath—and I thank you for bringing up the DFWA, because apparently you're not listening to the DFWA. The DFWA, Defence Force Welfare Association, has made very, very strong representations to amend the title to more specifically identify its intent besides its intent to give us a card and some sort of pin and to have a no-disadvantage clause inserted in the legislation. Indeed, when the FADT committee reviewed the bill, the Defence Force Welfare Association made a submission for the inclusion of such a clause but, of course, guess who opposed it? Veterans' Affairs. It took the view that DVA related legislation was beneficial to ex-serving ADF members anyway and that, as the bill was not about additional benefits, there was no need for a no-disadvantage clause. I actually thought that was a fair ask: no disadvantage to be brought to the veteran. It's not a big ask because we have all this goodwill, and you would not want this or any other bill to disadvantage a veteran—just one word: disadvantage.

Veterans and their families are affected by other legislation practices which sometimes have had unintended consequences. Oh, my goodness, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is full of those unintended consequences but, instead of cleaning up those unintended consequences, it's just let them sit. That's why it's such a dirty, sticking rotten mummy. You don't fix it; you just put bandaid over bandaid over bandaid. This is why we're in the situation that we're in now. This is why you are losing lives within the Department of Veterans' Affairs, because your decision-making is out of control. That's if you are making decisions. This is what is taking their lives.

I can tell you now: you have had review after review after review. You've had recommendations which you have not bothered with. You've just put whatever you thought was going to fix the Department of Veterans' Affairs without actually looking at all these review systems, and it is absolutely shocking. It would be nice if you actually started to listen to what was going on. So, let's have a look at these. You've had Enzyme reports. You've had forums. You've had chronology of other reports since 2009 related to transition of ADF personnel. You've had an Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing study into the suicides of serving and ex-serving ADF personnel. You've had an Australian National Audit Office report on the administration of rehabilitation services under MRCA. You've had an inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the care of ADF personnel wounded and injured during operations. Oh wait! It goes on. It keeps getting better! You've had all these reviews. You've had all these workshops. Are you actually listening? Because I would have thought if you were listening after all those reviews this Department of Veterans' Affairs should be tickety-boo, but it is actually worse than what it ever has been.

I've sat on the fence with the royal commission in the Department of Veterans' Affairs—I really have. It is getting to the point where you've now got inquiries going on in other states because of suicides, because the DVA, with their own hand, has caused those. That, to me, is very worrying. I don't think you're learning anything in here. There are also a lot of people out there that have not been able to function, who have PTSD, so they not only have psychological injuries they have physical injuries as well. They've got no idea these inquiries are going on. You're not exactly broadcasting them all over. There's a bit of smoke and mirrors going on. I can tell you now they haven't had their chance to have their say, and part of the healing process for those veterans will be to be able to have their say.

I'm gonna see what happens in here over the next six months. But I'm telling you now I am leaning towards supporting those calling for a royal commission, and that support is getting bigger. If I get on the train about that, especially on my social media, you will have no other choice but to call a royal commission on the Department of Veterans' Affairs, because it's failed to do its job. By doing all these little niceties here and giving us a pin is not going to fix the physical and psychological conditions of these veterans and those who have served. That's not what they're asking for. They're asking for what you have promised them for a hundred years, and that is to look after them when they return. They are not getting that from in here, so either we don't have the capability to be able to fix the system or something is terribly, terribly wrong. I tell you what, I've had enough of the suicides. So have they and so have their families and so have their friends. It is beyond the point of return. For goodness sake, to us this is a slap in the face, this whole card and 'I'll get up and ask questions about that'. It's a nice feeling, but it's not fixing anything. It's all smoke and mirrors. Anyway, I'll leave the rest of what I have to say and the questions until the committee.