Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recently we have heard an announcement by the federal government that they plan to significantly increase the total number of people serving in the Australian armed forces. I, personally, am not convinced that that is desirable or necessary. Certainly the extra $10 billion cost that has been flagged could be put to better use in other areas. But, regardless of that opinion—I think there would be varied opinions around this place and in the wider community about whether or not that is a good idea—what I would hope would be a universally shared view is that, however large our Defence Force is and however many Australian men and women serve in it, those men and women should be properly treated, particularly when they suffer harm as a consequence of serving in the armed forces.

It is no secret that there is a difficulty already in meeting the recruitment and retention targets for the current number of people serving in the Australian Defence Force. I think there is absolutely no chance of successfully increasing the size of our Defence Force to the level that is suggested or of increasing the recruitment and retention rates up to that level unless we—and the federal government—do a lot better in the way we assist people who have come to harm as part of their service in the Australian Defence Force.

Any of us in this place who have any dealings with veterans—war veterans or service veterans, let alone ex-service personnel from other areas of activity within the Australian Defence Force—would know that veterans can be cantankerous people from time to time. They often have very good reason to be cantankerous, but we need to be much more cognisant of the fact that this is not a bunch of grumpy people who are just naturally inclined that way. Whilst there will always be a component that will never be fully satisfied and there will always be people with exaggerated grievances, having dealt with veterans and ex-service personnel for a number of years now—indeed, I have been the Democrat spokesperson in the veterans area since I came into this chamber in 1997—I am convinced that the vast majority of concerns and complaints raised with me have a substantial foundation in fact.

Whether it is from the point of view of needing to meet our recruitment or retention targets or from the more general principle of recognising our special responsibility for assisting people who have served their country in the defence forces—either way—I think we really need to work a lot harder at improving our game. I recently put a piece on my website basically expressing the views that I have just mentioned—that we need to do a lot better with the treatment we provide for ex-service personnel. I received a lot of feedback from the public. One email I received, after mentioning similar views through the media a few weeks back, was from a person or a family in my own state of Queensland. I will quote their story:

My partner was medically discharged from the miliary after nineteen years service last year. He has been to hell and back in the last two years and he still has not received the support he needs.

We as a family have been through so much. But to see a strong vibrant career soldier reduced to tears day after day in pure frustration is heartbreaking. The system has let my partner down and he feels so frustrated, hurt and angry.

This is a man that served his country in 1999 in East Timor and has done over twenty years of service if you include the time he was in cadets while at school and army reserves. He adored his career as a soldier and would still be in—if only the military had fought for him—if he was offered the best medical services and specialists he deserved and was promised he could have still been in the army doing what he loves, there would have been no reason to discharge him. The army just placed him in the too hard basket and broke a good man.

That soldier was medically discharged due to injuries. He then faced an uphill battle to have them recognised before he could commence treatment. He is facing several operations and rehabilitation. He and his family feel that he was effectively thrown on the scrap heap when he became injured and then was accused of being a malingerer and a drain on the military.

The story I have just read out came directly from a Queensland family. It is a story I have heard time and time again. A couple of the themes repeat themselves: firstly, the continual recognition that it is not just a trauma for the ex-soldier or ex-serviceperson but also for their partner, their families, their parents and their children. They often end up having to carry the burden and having to live with the damage caused. So it is not just harm done to one person; often large numbers of people are directly affected.

The other aspect is the problem of needing to get various injuries recognised as being due to military service before treatment can commence or before payment for treatment will be covered. Often they are the same thing because people cannot afford or are unable to quickly access medical treatment. There have been improvements in recent times in some aspects of the delivery of compensation, I do acknowledge that—just as there are starting to be some improvements in the military justice system. But we really do need to make further improvements, not just in the criteria but also in the manner of administration. From the comment about the soldier feeling as though he had been thrown on the scrap heap or put in the too-hard basket when the military just does not know what to do with people, we need to realise that we are not talking necessarily about wartime injuries. Very serious injuries can happen during any part of day-to-day activity in the Defence Force, as they can in any job; but in the Defence Force it is multiplied significantly.

Another person whom I have met, Michael Andrews, lives in Hervey Bay, as does his family. His story was covered along with a number of others in an article in the Bulletin last year. I visited him and his family at Hervey Bay towards the start of this year. Mr Andrews was an elite serviceperson who was injured while training as part of moving across to the SAS. He suffered a severe stroke through heat stress while training in extreme heat conditions.

I think we can all imagine how difficult that must be. It is always difficult for any person to suffer severe injuries and to be permanently disabled, but to have to then continually argue that each ongoing medical ailment stems from activities or events related to service in the Defence Force just adds an extra level of stress at a time when people should not have it. Mr Andrews is another example of shifting from being an incredibly fit and active member of the armed forces when his injuries first happened to being permanently disabled and in a hospital somewhere. He literally got lost and had nobody looking after him. It is a crucial time, when people most need support and help through the maze of what to do next in their dramatically altered lives; what do they do with their families; what are the future economic prospects; what sort of treatment might they need; what the rehabilitation options are; where the income will come from and how to apply for it; shifting from Veterans’ Affairs to the Military Compensation Scheme and then out of the ADF. Sifting through all of those sorts of bureaucratic mazes is the very time when they need support, but it is often the time when they do not have it.

That is unacceptable in any circumstance. I think it is doubly unacceptable for people who are in the armed forces. Many of those comments were made on my website after I put up this piece. It is not only the injustice of what these people are going through; you can add to that the record we all know about of governments dragging the chain on recognising war related injuries, whether they be trauma and stress related, due to Agent Orange or a million other things. The net effect has not only harmed lives; all those families are saying to everybody they know: ‘Whatever you do, don’t join the defence forces. You’d be crazy. If you get hurt, they won’t look after you.’ Unless we deal with that problem—(Time expired)