Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I should first note that this is not my first speech. I'd like to commence by commending the senators who have made contributions to this debate on this bill, the Australian Veterans’ Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019, thus far. I have genuinely been interested and listened to their contributions to this debate. In particular I'd mention the passionate speech that was given by Senator Lambie. Obviously she holds these issues close to her heart. I think she made a great contribution to the debate here tonight, and I commend her for it.

Listening to those contributions I was reminded of a quote from one of the great Russian writers, Dostoevsky, who said in his work—it was either Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov'Judge a society by the way they treat their prisoners.' That is, if you go into the prisons in a society and see how that society treats its prisoners, then you can make an assessment as to the humanity of the society I think perhaps we could take those words and adjust them to this case and say, 'Judge our country—judge Australia—by the way we treat our veterans and their families,' because there is no more-special class of citizen in our society than those who have served our country in the armed forces.

Earlier today I made a contribution to the debate with respect to maritime borders in Timor-Leste. In that contribution I referred to the service that has been given by a number of my friends and people I've gotten to know over the years in that field and in particular during the time of the troubles in East Timor. My friend and colleague Senator James McGrath referred to the contribution of Graeme Mickelberg, who is an outstanding veteran himself and has made an outstanding contribution to this debate and to the discussion of the covenant. His son, Brent Mickelberg, is a member for the state seat of Buderim. Brent himself served in the Australian infantry, just as his father did. When he gave his maiden speech to the Legislative Assembly in Queensland, Brent Mickelberg, the member for Buderim, made a great contribution to the understanding of Queenslanders as to what veterans go through—the contribution and the sacrifices they make. I want to quote from his maiden speech:

I cannot speak in detail about my service over in Afghanistan, but some of the things that we saw will stay with me for life: images of children killed by the Taliban, suicide bomb attacks and US soldiers killed by the Afghan soldiers they had been mentoring.

Brent then went on to describe the troubles he had upon returning to Australia and the struggles he had adjusting to that. He described how:

On a drive from Cairns to Townsville one night with my sister I recall seeing movement on the side of the road. It clearly triggered something and I swerved violently in reaction. To tell you the truth, I had not even realised what had happened or how I had reacted until Katie told me to pull over.

He was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. It got so bad. Brent said:

Over time I began to wonder if I would be better off ending my life so that I would not be a burden to Anna and my family. I felt that I was not doing anything to make their lives better anyway.

So here is a great Australian who had given service to our beautiful country and was left in a dark place of desperation following his service for our country. But he told his story. He recovered. He sought treatment from a psychologist who specialised in returned veterans and police, got treatment for his post-traumatic stress disorder and worked through it. He had the bravery and the courage to refer to his own personal struggle. In his words, he said it was 'not only to spread awareness about the danger of PTSD for our Defence and emergency services personnel but also because too few men are willing to stand up and tell their stories of struggling with mental health. I want my son to grow up knowing that he should not be afraid to seek help if he ever needs it.'

Those are the people—the Brent Mickelbergs of the world and of this country—whom we are here respecting this evening in terms of this debate. Those are the people whom we must keep at the forefront of our minds and it is those people and their families who should never be let down by whatever government forms in this place.

I want to talk about the unique nature of defence service. Senator Lambie referred to the Defence Force Welfare Association and a submission they made. I want to quote from that submission in terms of informing the Senate as to: how is military service unique? How is it unique from the police, the fire service, the ambulance service and others who put themselves in harm's way? We know the great courage and bravery that they show. What is unique about military service in addition to the sacrifice? I'd like to quote from their submission because I think it encapsulates the concept of uniqueness extremely well. They said:

In examining military service as a unique calling we should understand that exposure to danger and the courage to face it are of themselves not unique features of military service. In arguing our case, we do not maintain that the serviceman has a higher requirement to show courage, nor a greater willingness to make sacrifices—even of his life—than others who serve the society and protect it from danger. We claim only for the serviceman—

and woman—

a distinction from all other callings, in that he and he alone—

or she and she alone—

is under a compulsion to face danger and make sacrifices—even of his—

or her—

life—once either he—

or she—

has committed himself—

or herself—

to serve, or has been compelled to serve by the State.

There's the compulsion, and therein lies the uniqueness of military service. Subsequently in the submission from the Defence Force Welfare Association, it says:

... once the individual has entered military service, the relationship of obedience is established. This relationship necessarily requires the surrender of the individual’s "inalienable" right to liberty, and alienates his right to life and security of the person, by placing responsibility for their preservation in the hands of others.

Again, that is where the uniqueness lies in terms of military service.

I would like to take on board Senator Lambie's point with respect to the no-disadvantage test. I note clause 7 refers to the beneficial interpretation of legislation. It refers to three pieces of legislation and instruments which are made under those acts—in particular, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988; and also instruments made under those acts. It is important that we actually read these words and reflect on what it means in the cases that come before the relevant decision-makers. Subclause 7.2 states:

(2) The Commonwealth is committed to decision-makers deciding claims under that legislation:

  (a) in a manner that is fair, just and consistent; and

  (b) within a time that is proportionate to the complexity of the matter; and

  (c) in a manner that promotes public trust and confidence; and

  (d) on the basis of only requiring evidence sufficient to meet the relevant standard of proof for the claims.

I would hope that all decision-makers, when they're considering matters related to veterans, have extremely close regard to subclause 7.2. It says:

… deciding claims under that legislation:

  (a) in a manner that is fair, just and consistent—

and as far as I'm concerned, that needs to take into account the unique nature of military service. It says:

  (b) within a time that is proportionate to the complexity of the matter;

and:

(c) in a manner that promotes public trust and confidence; and … only requiring evidence sufficient to meet the relevant standard of proof for the claims.

It's extremely important that decision-makers have reference to each of those matters.

I note that the Productivity Commission has brought down a report recently, which the government is considering. I think there is no work more important for this government than considering that report in great detail, ensuring that our DVA treats veterans with respect and ensuring that they get the actual outcomes that they deserve, given the service they've given our country.

I think employers all over this country need to consider their policies. Many of our largest companies in this country have policies which promote diversity. They should have policies that promote diversity; there is no question about that. I suggest that those companies reflect on their policies and find room in their policies for veterans, recognising that consideration should be given to employing veterans. They should put that in their diversity policies and their employment policies, and they should discuss what practical measures could be taken to assist in the employment of our veterans.

Lastly, I'd like to read the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. We've spoken about the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant. I think we should reflect closely upon each and every phrase in that covenant.

We, the people of Australia, respect and give thanks to all who have served in our defence force and their families.

We acknowledge the unique nature of military service—

the unique nature of compulsion, which I referred to earlier in my speech—

and the sacrifice demanded of all who commit to defend our nation.

We undertake to preserve the memory and deeds of all who have served and promise to welcome, embrace and support all military veterans as respected and valued members of our community.

For what they have done, this we will do.

It is a covenant, a promise, between the Australian people and our veterans, and no-one deserves the benefit of that promise more than our veterans and their families.