David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few remarks on the substantive bill, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, and then a couple of remarks regarding the two amendments that I have co-sponsored with my colleague Senator Davey.

This is probably the sixth or seventh inquiry that I have been involved with during my time as a senator, having come from a defence background. The welfare of our veterans is important, and it has come before the parliament on multiple occasions. This bill seeks to do something that a number of stakeholders over many years have called for, in terms of simplifying the system so that we can put into effect what the current Chief of Army said in his opening remarks at the Land Forces conference last year—that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reduce suicide and suicidality and that we can and must do more to ensure that we do not leave our mates behind, fallen on their own personal battlefield.

There is a challenge we have with this bill, with the eight schedules that were originally part of it and were subject to the inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—I see the secretary of that committee sitting here in the chamber, so thank you for your work and that of your team in helping to facilitate that inquiry—as well as, as colleagues have highlighted, the surprise ninth schedule that has come in regarding the commission. Those do a lot to bring about some of the structural changes that are required and some reform that will, hopefully, make the process easier, but it's important to remember that this process is dealing with people, with individuals.

I noticed that the royal commission highlighted in their report:

Risk and protective factors interact in complex and unpredictable ways in people's lives. Similarly, exposure to known risk factors for suicide and suicidality does not affect everyone in the same way.

That means that, whilst I applaud and welcome a number of measures to make three complex bills somewhat more aligned and simple, in one measure, we have to remember that no structure in and of itself, particularly if there are rigid definitions, will achieve what the Chief of Army has talked about, which is making sure we don't leave any of our mates behind. While things like the statement of principles, which are going to be embedded into the new system, have proven to be effective in simplifying some decision-making—and I would accept the evidence that, in many cases, it has accelerated the decision-making—they have also had the perverse effect of arbitrarily excluding some veterans who perhaps have unique or unusual circumstances or things that weren't envisaged by the people who put the statement of principles together.

If we are to achieve the Chief of Army's vision of not leaving any one of our mates behind, we need to make sure not only that we refine the process and put in place good measures—I welcome, for example, the fact that we have gone from looking for causality under MRCA to now looking at a temporal connection. The government and Defence have essentially accepted the fact that you don't need to prove that your deployment—for example, to Afghanistan—is the direct cause and have medical records to show it. If you were there at the appropriate time of the kinds of actions that may have caused that, then that temporal causality will establish the fact that the Commonwealth has an obligation to look after you. That's been a long time coming, and it builds on things like non-liability health care, where we have basically said that if you're in the ADF we will look after you. That took a long time to come in, but it's those kinds of changes that meet the real human need and that we have to have.

I will leave my comments on the substantive bill there and address a couple of brief remarks regarding the two amendments. As two other colleagues have indicated, there was significant surprise amongst the veterans community and ex-service organisations about the very-last-minute inclusion of an amendment from the government to establish the commission. Whilst we accept that it's a recommendation of the royal commission, if you read through the amendment, you will see that this is a body which is given quite remarkable powers. People will go to jail if they don't cooperate and work with the commissioner. And yet there is very little transparency in terms of the appointment, oversight, costings and all of the subordinate rules and regulations for how it will run. Most importantly, it was not co-designed with the people who it is intended to benefit or those who have lived experience in the whole veterans and DVA system. If there is one thing that governments of both persuasions have often talked about, it's the importance of stakeholder engagement and the principle of working with people who are going to be affected and to put something in at the last minute with no ability for the Senate to scrutinise that, I think, is very poor.

As Senator Davey said, we are not going to stay in the way of the passage of this bill, because, as groups like the RSL and others have highlighted, we've waited too long for this and we should get this through. But we know that the commission is due to come in in September of this year, and the second-reading amendment that the coalition is putting forward is intended to provide the impetus to commence a review that provides the opportunity for the consultation that should have occurred before this amendment was actually brought before the parliament. I encourage people on the crossbench and in the government to support this coalition position, because what it's providing is an opportunity, even once the parliament is prorogued, for stakeholders to say, 'Yes, there is an inquiry coming. What comment would we like to make on this commission? What do we think it needs to be able to do?' so that, when a new government is formed after the election and even during the caretaker period, while the department is designing and working around what the commission would look like, we start building the evidence base for a co-designed process. In those months leading up to the commencement in September this year, at least there would be an opportunity, which currently there has not been, for stakeholders to have a voice.

I recognise that Senator Lambie has put her own amendment forward, which is welcome. She has given thought to, perhaps, some changes that should occur, who appoints et cetera, but I still believe there needs to be that broader consultation. This amendment is intended to say, 'Let's have a co-designed process for the affected stakeholders so, before it becomes operational in September, we give veterans, their families and their support groups the opportunity to have some input into this commission.' That is the substantive amendment going in.

The second-reading amendment goes to the issue of how we pick up the individual. It picked up on the words of the royal commission that highlight that every person responds differently. I come to the statement of principles. They provide a framework by which some groups—I'm going to refer here to an article that was actually written in the Examiner newspaper by Mel Dee back in December last year. It's a very useful, succinct summary of some case studies and some of the issues at play. That's where these quotes are coming from. I've chosen these because they are quite a succinct summary of some of the concerns various stakeholders have raised.

I've talked about the statement of principles and the fact that there's broad support by many within the community, because they have expedited decisions for many people. But it's the interaction between the Repatriation Medical Authority, the RMA, and the statement of principles that is of some concern. DVA have come out and very specifically said that they do not want to make individual decisions unless the RMA approves a change to the SOP overall. But if we take what the royal commission said as fact, and if we hear what psychologists and others tell us, individuals do respond differently. So my view is that, like we have non-liability health care, presumptive liability and temporal connections as opposed to causal relationships, if a veteran has a couple of well-credentialled medical experts saying, 'We think this person is suffering this effect because of their defence service, and here is our evidence,' we should have a system that is flexible enough to say, 'The presumption, on the strength of these two medical experts, is that this veteran should be supported by the Commonwealth.' If a subsequent review finds out that this is not actually something that is worth putting into the broader SOP then that's fine, but the timeframe, which the royal commission found in some cases exceeded 12 months, affects the broader framework and system. It doesn't increase the suicidality of the individual.

I recognise that departments and governments hate the concept of unbounded liability, but I think we can put enough checks and balances in to make sure that we avoid a situation where people go doctor shopping to find someone who's known to be supportive. I think there's a way we can do that, but we can provide the flexibility to pick up those individual differences. We can have a presumption of support. By providing the support that the Chief of Army talked about—'Leave none of our mates behind'—we can keep that person out of the dark spiral that they can so easily fall into. And then we take the review over a longer period to see if we should change the system.

So that's our second reading amendment. We recognise it's not going to get done by September this year. It's a complex issue, so the recommendation is that within six months there should be feedback on that particular issue. I would encourage senators on the government benches and the crossbench to support those two amendments looking into the RMA and the SOP to make sure they are fit for purpose and that every individual receives just and timely support from the Commonwealth they have served.

I also encourage support for the opposition's substantive amendments, which would put in place the opportunity for stakeholders to have their voices heard around the design and function of this commission. I understand that that will still overlap with the work others will be doing to stand up the commission. But the best possible outcome would be if the next government—and I trust it will be a coalition government, but, even if it is a Labor-Greens alliance, whoever is in power should do this—sought to commit to use this as an opportunity for co-design, to make sure that what is actually implemented in September is fit for purpose and meets the desires, expectations and needs of the veteran community, including their families.