David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens support the policy of harmonising the current veterans' entitlements and rehabilitation and compensation arrangements from three acts into one. To that extent, we will be supporting the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, and we will be navigating our way through a variety of amendments that have been proposed from all around the chamber on the bill. However, there needs to be continuing support and dialogue with veterans and their families to ensure that the intent of the bill is met—that is, that no-one is left worse off. We've had that statement repeatedly from the minister, and I take him at his word. But I can tell you now that the veteran community, with their advocates and friends in this chamber, will be holding the government to that and ensuring that that fundamental underpinning of this harmonisation legislation is met and that no-one is actually worse off.

The bill represents what I would call a modest bureaucratic change into how veterans' entitlements are managed in this country. It doesn't pretend to be a response to the final report from the royal commission, for the most obvious reason that it was tabled before the final report was released. That matter has been confirmed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in the inquiry we had into the bill and in exchanges in estimates as well. This bill won't in itself make any of the essential changes that veterans and their supporters know are needed to address the core recommendations of the spirit of that royal commission. That is unfinished work. This bill largely benefits the bureaucracy, with benefits for veterans—there will be some as a result of this, though largely incidental to the bureaucratic benefits that are delivered from simplifying three schemes into one.

What we did see in the inquiry was very clear evidence that the legislation governing veterans' entitlements and their rehabilitation and compensation rights is extraordinarily complex. It's incredibly difficult for even engaged advocates and lawyers to navigate, and we saw that it harms veterans and harms their families. The current approach of veterans being covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, the DRCA; and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the MRCA, is just not fit for purpose. That was absolutely clear.

The scope of this bill is intentionally limited to not address the fundamental ways in which veterans are dealt with. But as the TPI Federation said in their evidence to the inquiry:

… the proposed changes to the legislation actually is not intended to alleviate suicidal ideation but rather tries to address issues that the Government and the Bureaucracy has with the legislation. This 'Simplification' is for the purpose of administration and not for the benefit of the Veterans and their families.

From my perspective, having heard that evidence, having sat through the inquiry and having spoken with veterans and their advocates in the organisation, I think what we can say is that simplified administration could, to some very modest degree, empower veterans to better navigate the bureaucracy. That is a modest win for veterans. But the point is still clear that this bill is not actually intended to address those myriad issues with veteran compensation. It just doesn't; it's urgent unfinished business.

What we do know is that the recommendations of the royal commission remain overwhelmingly unaddressed, and we need to work across the chamber to ensure that the rights and needs based entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation rights that veterans should expect after service are actually in place. We look forward to working with the government. In fact, we look forward to working across the chamber, and I particularly want to commend the work of Senator Lambie. She's been an unfailing advocate, and I acknowledge the bravery she has shown in that space to work across the chamber to implement the recommendations of the royal commission.

There are some matters that remain unaddressed. One of the strong lines of evidence in the inquiry was about how much of the language is incredibly dated, even in the updated bill. The Families of Veterans Guild pointed out in their submission to the committee:

The first thing that needs to be done is to include veteran families and to remove archaic language which perpetuates power dynamics and isn't consistent with contemporary standards. Language like 'wholly dependent partner', 'dependents' and 'attendants' no longer meets community expectations and devalues the role of veteran families. If the Bill were to include amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) to replace this language with the words 'veteran families' or 'families of veterans' then the Act too would need to define them …

I do note that, when that's tested across the broader veteran community, the difficulty has been landing those definitions and determining where 'veteran families' begin and end or what 'families of veterans' would mean. But it shouldn't be a task beyond a competent government and bureaucracy to engage and take the language from the 1950s and turn it into something that genuinely represents that sweep of supports—family and close support—that veterans have and need, often because the formal system itself doesn't support them.

We note that there's the introduction of reforms to the presumptive liability provisions. They do look like, and we tested that in the inquiry, a modest positive step because there are certain conditions where, if veterans develop them after a period of service, the presumption should be that they actually arose from service without veterans having to go through incredibly complex steps. Tragically, that includes a series of cancers for veterans who were exposed to chemicals that we now know, and indeed a good-faith employer would have known at the time for much of their work, are likely to be cancer causing. Some of that is already covered in existing bureaucratic determinations, but, as the evidence becomes clearer, more of those conditions should be included. Veterans who served in conflict zones or had extended peacekeeping obligations, when they present with often quite complex PTSD, shouldn't have to go through a process of proving that their PTSD arose from their service. Presumptive liability allows for that compensation to flow at the time they need it, which is when they first present, not a year and a half after their lawyers manage to persuade the department to move.

I do ask and I'd seek the minister to address how the new scheme will work in practice. There doesn't seem to be a clear, transparent process. We had a commitment from the government that all the existing conditions covered by presumptive liability would be grandfathered through an administrative process, and we'd like the government to confirm that. But then there is no clarity about what the process will be to add future presumptive liability claims. I think the government owes the veterans, their families and their communities that transparency. We ask for that to be clear.

How will the statements of principles regime be applied? We know that there have been concerns over issues of eligibility, and we've heard these from stakeholders and veterans. They were raised in the inquiry and they've been raised historically. One clear example that has been repeatedly raised with us is the surviving 1965-72 national servicemen who served overseas or personnel who were not in a warlike condition as determined by Defence but certainly were exposed to danger. Those nashos in that period from 1965 to 1972 were conscripted. They didn't have a choice. If they went overseas and served in Vietnam and were directly exposed in Vietnam, they had a certain set of entitlements, but, if, for example, they went to Butterworth in Malaysia and did perimeter patrols, they were found to not be in warlike conditions even though they were under threat of attack throughout much of that work that they did. As for those nashos who spent six years here as conscripts instead of on service overseas, they've been largely rubbed from history. It doesn't seem right to us, and we have amendments to try and remedy that historical injustice to the nashos.

I particularly want to note that many veterans who served in peacekeeping actions with the ADF served in conditions that put them at incredible personal risk. Indeed, one of the most recent serious injuries suffered by ADF personnel was during an attack on a peacekeeping operation on the border between Lebanon and Israel. They were hit by a missile strike. The department has a table of peacekeeping missions that are found to qualify for warlike service, but the question is: why have some peacekeeping missions that were incredibly dangerous not been included? There's a list of them.

We have an amendment that we'd urge this chamber to support that seeks a review of those peacekeeping operations and the extent to which peacekeeping operations where people were exposed to incredible risk have been deemed to not be warlike service. That would include such things as the United Nations Commission for Indonesia in January of 1949—some of those veterans are still with us, and that was an incredibly dangerous deployment—as well as the United Nations Yemen Observation Mission, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers. Those, of course, were established by protocol between Egypt and Israel. The list could go on. These veterans were exposed to incredible hardship and real and genuine danger, but, because the definition of 'warlike deployment' requires some kind of military intent, despite the risks and despite the dangers, they feel like they're treated like second-class veterans. We hope that will end, and we hope that there will be majority support for a review of peacekeeping operations.

I particularly want to note the advocacy of the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association, the APPVA, who said in their submission:

… the APPVA is concerned that a legislative limitation on the definition of a veteran, risks recreating the historical problems created by differentiating between different classes of veterans, even when these veterans served side-by-side on the same operation. If this issue remains unaddressed, the government will simply recreate the policy complexity, inter-veteran tensions, administrative intransigence, and poor outcomes that have adversely impacted veterans' support arrangements for decades.

Stopping there, this may seem like some kind of legal argument about what are or aren't warlike conditions, and there's a definition there, and, if you fall on one side, you're recognised and, if you fall on the other, you're not. When you talk to veterans, this is incredibly important to them not just for the compensation benefits they get but for the status and recognition of their service.

I do want to thank the government for working with us on having amendments to ensure that there will be a statutory review within a year. I think that's important, and that's a good faith amendment. The minister's office, I think, have been dealing with complex legislation, navigating their internal stakeholders and external stakeholders as best they can. We do have very real concerns, though, for how the last-minute amendment to implement recommendation 122 of the royal commission has found its way as a small novel attached to the end of this bill. We will support the creation of the commission, but we've heard from the veterans community how surprised they were that it came in this way and how little consultation there was, and we think it's fundamental that there be a parliamentary review of that.

I finish by giving special thanks to the TPI Federation of Australia, the Families of Veterans Guild, the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association, the Defence Force Welfare Association and the nashos—the national servicemen—for their engagement with my office. I would be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge the work of my staff and, particularly, Sam Brennan in doing that work and getting us to the position we are in.

This bill makes modest changes. We'll back in the modest changes. We hope for improvements by way of amendment, but I can tell you now there's a bloody lot more work to be done.