Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006. Labor is supporting the bill but I will use this opportunity to make some comment. I am very pleased to be speaking on this issue and to be representing the shadow minister for veterans affairs in this place. As I said, Labor supports the bill before us today and particularly welcomes the removal of the age 65 limit for the payment of the special rate disability pension, provision of travel expenses to attend hearings of the Veterans Review Board in relation to appeals under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, MCRA, and the reforms to incapacity payments for those members injured in their initial training.

The payment of a special rate disability pension under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act currently ceases at age 65 or after 104 weeks for people aged 63 or over. This amendment will remove those limits and allow for the payments to continue past this time. This will bring the payment of the special rate disability pension under the MRCA in line with its counterpart under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. This amendment is very welcome and removes the current anomaly.

The bill also allows for the payment of travel expenses to the Veterans Review Board for those under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Currently these travel expenses are not met under the bill. This was a mistake in the original act and is now being corrected with this amendment. Again this will bring the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in line with the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. Labor welcomes this amendment and notes the work of the different veteran organisations that helped point this anomaly out to the government.

The bill also includes amendments that will help improve payments to service personnel incapacitated by injury or disease while they are undergoing their initial training. These amendments provide that all members and former members who are injured or contract a disease while undergoing initial training and do not attain their final Defence Force income will be paid at the same progression rate as their classmates during the training period until completion of that training. The member or former member will then be deemed to have graduated from the initial training at the same time as his or her classmates. Once the person is deemed to have graduated, their normal earnings will be calculated against the rank and employment category that the relevant service chief advises the person would have held on completion of the initial training program. This is a positive amendment that corrects a current inequity. Labor fully supports this change.

The bill makes a number of other very small amendments. This bill will provide for the review of a single factor or multiple factors within a statement of principles, rather than the entire contents of that statement, by the Repatriation Medical Authority when they are requested to do so. Hopefully these amendments will therefore lead to a decrease in the time spent by the RMA reviewing statements. These amendments will also apply to the Specialist Medical Review Council, which is the appeal body to the RMA.

Schedule 2 of the bill makes a slight technical amendment to the VEA which will provide authorisation for the appropriation of funds from the consolidated review fund for the payment of all benefits and allowances. The amendments contained within schedule 3 will clarify existing policy in relation to income stream rules. They also include consequential amendments in response to changes in family law to allow the means test to be applied to certain non-superannuation annuities that are split pursuant to a divorce property settlement. Schedule 4 of the bill makes a number of very minor and technical amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.

As I have outlined, the bill contains a number of minor changes that will help improve administrative procedures within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. These measures, while minor, are largely positive for the veteran community. I therefore congratulate the government on these changes.

However, as this bill has sought to fix some administrative and technical problems within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Labor is disappointed that these measures are not directed at solving some of the problems the department has been having with claims processing and backlogs, as have been pointed out by the shadow minister on many occasions. The annual report for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs revealed a dramatic increase in the time it takes to process veterans’ claims, particularly those relating to injury claims. I will quote some of these statistics from the department’s report to illustrate the point.

The time taken to process a primary compensation claim under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act is reported as 106 days, while the target is 75 days—a 40 per cent increase over target time. The mean time taken to process primary injury claims under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act ballooned from 122 days in 2004-05 to 181 days in 2005-06—a 48 per cent increase. The mean time taken to process primary injury claims under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has blown out from 90 days to 146 days—up 62 per cent since 2004-05. Finally, the time taken to process new impairment claims under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has dramatically ballooned from 26 days to 130 days—up a massive 400 per cent since 2004-05.

Furthermore, when we questioned the department through the estimates process about claims processing, Labor uncovered that some 4,570 claims have exceeded the average time taken to process a claim. This backlog included 2,583 claims for a disability pension, 956 claims for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and 545 claims for compensation under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. When Labor questioned the department on this issue it was revealed to us that there had been a net reduction in staff in some of these areas in order to meet budget allocations. This is completely unacceptable and Labor believes that our veteran community deserves better treatment.

What makes it worse is that the department head had to admit in the recent estimates hearings that the Howard government had known about this problem since 2002. They had known for nearly five years about the problems they were having in Veterans’ Affairs with the growing backlog and time taken to process claims. What has been their response over this time? It has been to cut more staff. The Howard government need to start to treat our veterans with greater respect and integrity than this. It is not good enough for resources to be cut in this way. It has a direct effect on the lives of our veterans. They deserve an efficient claims process, not staff cuts that make the waiting lists and waiting times longer. Many of the people involved in the claims process are in a damaged state. They are frail and they need our support and assistance. A long claims process can have a real impact on the wellbeing of the veterans as well as of their families. The longer it takes for claims to be considered, the more anxiety is brought to bear on people who often have been through some quite terrible circumstances, and the effect of that will be quite serious. Therefore, the government have to address this immediately.

In conclusion, the bill does make some welcome amendments and minor reforms which Labor fully supports. Our problem is that the bill does not go far enough. The simple fact is that the Howard government has to stop taking the veteran community for granted and start addressing some of these practical and functional issues in order to service them in a far better way.

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

The Australian Democrats support the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) Bill 2006 as well. It makes some changes that are welcome. One would have to raise the question of why these measures were not included when the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act was put together. There was a lot of consultation done at the time and there was a working party involved in the drafting of that act. Issues such as ensuring that the special rate disability pension continued after age 65 and that those incapacitated during initial training received payments at least equal to those of someone who had completed training were discussed, as I understand it, during the original drafting of the MRCA by the working party. These sorts of things should have been included at the time.

There are still anomalies that need to be fixed. The Democrats, of course, always seek to be constructive, and every time positive moves are being made we are prepared to say so. We acknowledge the actions contained within this legislation but, nonetheless, repeat our concerns that there are other anomalies that still need to be addressed. I would also note that, as I understand it, the drafting working party for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act were promised a follow-up forum after the act had been implemented and in place for 18 months or so. I do not believe there has been any proper meeting of that working party to see how things have progressed and to examine any ongoing anomalies. I think that those ESOs who were involved in the initial drafting should be involved in formal, public and open reviews of the MRCA. I think there are always opportunities for ongoing improvements.

I have stated a number of times in this chamber that, whatever our political persuasion or views about how our armed forces should be used in particular conflicts and activities, we all have a responsibility to ensure that those who join the defence forces are properly looked after. Certainly that does happen in some cases, but there are still far too many cases where it does not happen and those who run into difficulties have to spend a lot of their time fighting to get proper assistance when they should be getting that assistance straight up. There is no doubt that with the inadequacies in the assistance provided, particularly to injured service personnel—whether they are veterans of military combat or service personnel who are injured in the course of their duties in other ways—every time we fail one of those people and every time one of them feels like they have been left on the scrap heap, we are not only committing a great injustice and disservice to that person and their family but also making it much harder for us to meet our recruitment and retention targets and needs for the armed forces. Those sorts of things are not in the best interests of the entire community, let alone those individuals and families who are directly affected.

Almost every time I make any public commentary on this sort of matter I receive a message from at least one and quite often a number of former defence personnel with the story of their dissatisfaction with the treatment they got and their feeling of being cast aside. Governments were quite happy to give them parades, medals and all of the things that look nice on the television, but when it came to actually helping them out in a time of need or to rebuild the remainder of their lives, the assistance that needed to be provided was not there. That is not me saying that; that is what I continually hear from injured ex-service personnel. That is the way they are feeling—that they are being cast aside and that their families are being left to carry the burden on their own. Not only is that an injustice for them but it is a clear impediment to us having any hope of meeting recruitment and retention targets, because some of those families spend a lot of energy going around telling other people: ‘The last thing you want to do is join the ADF because this is the way my son or daughter was treated.’ That is why it is in our own interest—let alone in the interest of doing the right thing—to continually look for ways to lift our game. This legislation is a small step forward. On behalf of the Democrats, I will continue to keep the pressure on whoever is in government so that they perform better in this regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.