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

The Labor Party supports the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. The bill proposes a range of mostly technical and housekeeping amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act—or the VEA—the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act. Its provisions seek to formalise current practice and policy, to better align the VEA with the Social Security Act, to correct some unintended or unfair consequences of legislative drafting and to improve the Department of Veterans’ Affairs administration.

An efficient administration ensures fair outcomes for veterans. These amendments touch upon the income and assets test, the tax treatment of veterans pensions and assets, bereavement payments, and eligibility criteria for assistance and compensation. Therefore, while these are fairly minor amendments, they will affect a considerable number of veterans and it is important that we consider the full range of their effects. I want to mention a few salient amendments in the bill before discussing Labor’s position on the administration of veterans issues, reiterating some of the points put in the other place by my colleagues.

The bill amends the VEA to require the Repatriation Commission to provide written notification of income support pension decisions and other matters and make a written record of that determination—setting out its findings on questions of fact, evidence and reasons for its determination. The commission will also be required by law to provide a copy of the decision, findings and rights of appeal to the claimant except where that information is of a confidential nature. I am advised that this largely updates the VEA in line with existing practice.

In addition, the bill will ensure that additional one-off payments of family assistance under the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (More Help for Families—One-off Payments) Act 2004 are not counted as income under the act. This will bring the VEA into line with the Social Security Act, which exempts one-off payments to families from this income test. The bill expands the definition of ‘compensation affected payment’ to include supplementary benefits. This means that, in cases of overpayment, supplementary payments will be recoverable where primary payments are recoverable. This is in line with the provisions of the Social Security Act as well.

The bill will amend the bereavement payment provisions to ensure that, where a deceased person’s payments include the Defence Force income support allowance, the bereavement payment provided to the surviving partner or carer also includes that allowance. It will also amend the income and assets test for the service pension and income support supplement to allow for the application of the deprivation provision to be reversed in circumstances where an asset is disposed of for less than its full value but adequate consideration is later received.

Schedule 2 amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, broadening the definition of ‘service injury or disease’ to include those injuries or diseases contracted or aggravated as a consequence of medical treatment for an earlier service injury or disease and amending the onus of proof provisions to cover both persons claiming for the acceptance of liability and persons claiming for compensation. Schedule 5 clarifies the taxable status of Defence Force income support allowance payments in line with the tax treatment of the basic rate component of the ordinary age pension or the disability support pension. It must be remembered that veterans and ex-service personnel are often at their most vulnerable during the claims process, both emotionally and physically. Veterans and ex-service personnel deserve more. Constant improvement is necessary to ensure we have an effective operating system and administration which provide for the veterans community in a transparent and easily understandable way. For this reason, one of Labor’s six pillars for action on veterans affairs is to improve the operation of the department. This will be a key policy focus for a Labor government if elected later this year.

The Labor Party have spoken extensively in recent months about the need for improvement in the administration of the department. For example, we have raised the issue of improving the interface between Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to ensure a smoother transition from service to care, such as around record sharing. We have also expressed concern about the department’s claim-processing times. Departmental figures obtained in February showed that 4,570 claims have exceeded the average time taken to process a claim. While efforts are being made to address these backlogs, these waiting times are clearly unacceptable and should not have occurred in the first place. These long waiting times are occurring against the background of a net national reduction of 12.5 per cent over the last two financial years of staff allocated to process compensation claims under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The 2007-08 budget shows that the government will reduce the department’s average staffing level for the third financial year in a row.

Labor have been willing to support the work of the government in veterans affairs where positive steps have been made to enhance the wellbeing and care of veterans. In the recent budget, Labor supported the government’s initiatives which include: $25,000 one-off ex gratia payments for Australian former prisoners of war in Europe or their surviving widows, a doubling of the funeral benefit under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act from $1,000 to $2,000, and catch-up payments for special intermediate rate disability pensioners. However these initiatives do not go far enough, and in fact many are catch-up initiatives. The catch-up payments for special intermediate rate disability pensioners addressed the considerable erosion of the value of those pensions over the term of the Howard government but did not insure against future erosion through indexation.

Recent enhancement funding for the gold card addressed its serious decline due to underfunding over the term of the Howard government. Veterans were not receiving the services they needed. Labor have been busy putting forward positive plans for veterans: the indexation of the above general rate pensions to both the CPI and the MTAWE indices; a commitment to provide additional resources to the suicide prevention service ASIST; and an undertaking to do a health study of the children of Vietnam veterans. We want to make sure that, in all things, veterans get a fair go. Labor support the bill and look forward to its implementation. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 is a relatively simple housekeeping bill that does not require a lot of description or debate. It makes amendments to a number of acts involving veterans benefits. Its aim is to correct anomalies contained in those acts. This is necessary to avoid unforseen matters cropping up. It only takes a few people to be affected unfairly for such amendments to become necessary. As such this bill is unobjectionable and is worthy of support.

It is worth reflecting, however, on this maze of legislation and the seeming inability to streamline it. This is particularly the case with veterans benefits. Such benefits originated far earlier than most of those in all other social security legislation. Veterans benefits were derived from the ravages on diggers, and their dependents, of World War I. They have always been distinct from social welfare payments. Inevitably, however, similarities between the two have been drawn. The separate origins of these benefits were forgotten by many. Indeed, some have wrongly suggested that the payment and the care of veterans should be transferred to what is now known as Centrelink. That will never happen, and nor should it. We have long preserved the veterans jurisdiction as a separate entity within government because of its unique status.

The history of veterans care and the public’s commitment to it is very important. The gradual move within and into the Defence portfolio, however, is a far more positive one. As care shifts from World War II veterans to the general population of ex-service personnel, that move becomes even more sensible. Even now the separateness of veterans affairs and Defence may not be as logical as it once was. The artificial division in the provision of services often leads to inefficiencies. The quality of services delivered by two agencies to separate populations—dependent only on eligibility for war service benefits—is hard to justify now. We recognise the special status of those who served to defend us in the past, but the nature of modern service is quite different, as are the needs for support. The dual operation of disability compensation schemes has become a nightmare, and it is often unfair. The new act will remedy that in time. But it is something that should have been done 15 or 20 years ago.

The situation is likewise with income support benefits. Differences between the service pension and the age pension are recognised, but over the years they have been brought into line. However, as this bill shows, there are still differences which trip up legislative drafters. It is difficult to keep in synch different legislation that affects the same population. In policy terms, there is only one substantial difference between the age pension and the service pension, and that is that eligibility for the latter commences five years earlier. But this is also historic and there must be doubt now about the relevance of that distinction—except for it being a mark of status between the two categories: the aged pensioner at large and the aged veteran.

The origin of that five-year eligibility demarcation reflects the shortened life span of many ex-World War I diggers, who spent many years overseas suffering interminable bombardment. It was likewise for many in World War II, although it is not necessary to get into a debate as to who suffered more. The point is that the issue of longevity, as affected by war service today, is increasingly becoming a dubious proposition. If, in policy terms, it is a mark of respect or of service, then let us say so. But, if it is a reaction to reduced life expectation, as a general proposition it is now doubtful. The fit soldier syndrome is equally as relevant.

So the question becomes: why doesn’t the government get serious and avoid this legislative process every year? Why doesn’t it provide one age service pension through the act? Preserve the age differential by all means; but apart from that the differences are minimal. If we can do it for disability compensation between two very large agencies, why not between two others? The answer is that the social welfare bureaucracy would never agree. That is because of the longstanding ‘warfare’ between agencies. The traditional values and cultures clash regardless of the greater good. That is why we now have such a strong focus on whole-of-government endeavours.

Government is quite rightly trying to bring some of these things together. There are two telling illustrations of this serious dysfunction in policy between the bureaucratic behemoths. The first is the Defence Force Income Support Allowance, which was legislated two years ago now. The policy conflict there was that the veterans lobby wanted to exempt veterans disability pensions from the means test for the age pension and other Centrelink payments for which it was counted as income. The government agreed to that proposal. It could have been done by adding a single word to the Social Security Act. But the social security mindset could not accept veterans compensation payments being treated in this manner. Nor would they administer the exemption through their payment system. So the Department of Veterans’ Affairs had to build its own new system to pay a refund of the equivalent amount, which social security had refused to deduct. This is mind-bogglingly stupid, but it is all on the pubic record and it all happened.

Again in the recent budget, a decision was made to pay a catch-up amount to T&PI veterans. Essentially, the government had agreed to the proposition that the value of the pension in isolation had declined over the years. Yet, having agreed to that, they chose to do nothing about the cause, which was a failure to index the whole pension—not just part of it—in line with other pensions. I bet this involved a social security objection to the indexation of a disability pension by a wage based index—that is, they stuck rigidly to a definitional difference in pension types between those which are economic and those which are non-economic. If I am not even close, perhaps the minister will advise me in his response. In policy terms, it makes little difference. As the government have clearly demonstrated, there is little policy consistency in this bill. Unfortunately, the government do not appear to care. So, instead of a better policy rationale between portfolios and legislation, we will have this legislative bandaid approach.

The same inane legislative fixes are produced budget after budget in the same area. These same amendment bills will keep coming before us, wasting the precious time of the parliament. Having said that, I will finish here and waste no more time. We support the bill but not the ridiculous process it represents. I ask the minister to respond to the issues that I have raised.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too wish to address a few comments to the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. As we have heard from previous speakers, the bill amends three acts: the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. In the main, the proposed amendments repair inconsistencies between those acts and other legislation, particularly the Social Security Act. The bill before us also remedies unintentional consequences of previous legislation. Once again, we are here fixing mistakes that the government should never have made in the first place.

It is always disturbing to realise that legislation is flawed and even more so when that legislation is in the area of veterans affairs, because it affects people who have served in our defence forces. Currently, there are some 450,000 veterans and nearly 112,000 war widows. As we know, more than 100,000 Australians have died during the numerous conflicts in which our country has been involved. Many of those who were fortunate enough to return from active service did so suffering from physical and mental injuries. The lives of veterans and their families are, of course, significantly affected by their service. It is also a sad fact that every day the nation loses more of its World War II veterans. This fact was brought home to me recently when my father’s old battalion association advised me that they would be winding up next year. Anzac Day next year will be their last official function because there are not enough diggers left to maintain the activities of the association. I understand that it is not the only World War II battalion association going through that difficult process at the moment. So anything that we can do to make life better for our veterans—veterans of all wars—should be supported. The government should at least make an effort to ensure that future legislation avoids the neglect and mistakes that we are remedying today.

As senators on this side of the chamber have said previously, Labor supports the legislation. However, I would like to highlight a few matters in the bill. Currently, the Repatriation Commission is required to provide written notification of its decisions in relation to a number of claims and other matters, but the specific matters to be notified have not been prescribed in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. Any senator or member who has assisted veterans in pursuing claims through the Repatriation Commission, or in appealing the decisions of the commission, can attest to how such matters often involve significant distress for veterans and their families, particularly when veterans feel that the nation they served has failed them in the process of applying for compensation. The amendments before us will require the commission to include in its notification its findings on questions of fact, evidence and reasons for its determination. Importantly, the person who made the claim will be provided with a copy of this information. While that will not always make good the disappointment of an aggrieved complainant, hopefully it will go some way to providing some more confidence in the system in place.

In addition, the bill amends the bereavement payment provisions to ensure that, where a deceased person’s payments include the Defence Force income support allowance, the surviving partner or carer also receives that allowance within their bereavement payment. This is an important step that needs to be taken to ensure that the partners and carers of veterans receive the financial support they require.

The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 sees a number of amendments in schedule 2 of this bill. One such change that I find encouraging is the broadening of the definition of ‘service injury or disease’. The proposed amendment will allow for the inclusion of injuries or diseases contracted or aggravated as a consequence of medical treatment for an earlier service injury or disease. With such injuries and diseases now included in the MRCA’s definition of service injury or disease, veterans who do develop these problems will, hopefully, be better protected and supported.

There are worthwhile things in this bill, and the previous senators have outlined some of those. I also acknowledge the recent increase in funeral benefits for eligible veterans under the VEA to $2,000. That is a good move. There has been some progress made on the important issue of compensation for our veterans, but there are still issues that the government needs to address. One of the government’s biggest failings in providing for Australia’s veterans is its refusal to introduce complete indexation of veterans’ pensions. By refusing to index their pensions, the government has made life very difficult for our veterans. The erosion of the standard of living suffered by veterans for more than 10 years is significant. For example, a veteran on the special rate disability pension has lost somewhere between $70 and $92 a fortnight over the last decade. If Labor’s indexation policy were adopted, our veterans would receive the compensation for their service that they so clearly deserve. Labor is committed to properly indexing these pensions in the same way that the age pension is indexed.

I am pleased to say that the government has finally paid some attention to the veterans community, which has lobbied hard on this issue, because—surprise, surprise—in the pre-election budget recently delivered, the government issued veterans in receipt of the special rate disability pension a one-off catch-up payment. That once-only payment will assist disadvantaged veterans temporarily, but it does not equate to all the income that veterans in receipt of the pension have missed out on. While Labor support the one-off payments, we want veterans’ pensions to be properly indexed. Veterans not only deserve this increase in their pension but need it to maintain an acceptable standard of living. Hopefully the government will see this as the long-term problem that it really is and recognise that veterans and their families deserve to have the value of their payments maintained. They should not have to wait until an election budget is coming up for them to receive appropriate compensation.

Another example of the too little, too late method that the government prefers when it comes to compensating our veterans is the recently announced payment of $25,000 to former prisoners of war interned in Europe. You would think that no-one could argue that POWs deserve special consideration. I would suggest that most of our POWs endured conditions that are beyond the comprehension of anybody in this parliament. In 2001, former Australian POWs imprisoned in Japan were given a much overdue payment of $25,000. It was not until 2004, in the lead-up to a federal election, surprisingly, that the government finally made a payment to former Australian POWs imprisoned in Korea. Only this year has the budget allocated compensation to our POWs who were imprisoned in Europe. Previously the government argued that the conditions endured by those POWs did not warrant a compensation payment. It is a pretty mean and thankless government that could presume to apply a hierarchy of suffering to former Australian prisoners of war. The Howard government has had more than a decade to compensate these Australians for their suffering but, as I have said, it took an election year to see a change of heart from the government.

While we are supporting this bill, Labor will continue to monitor what the government is and is not doing for our veteran community. Another area of particular concern for Labor senators is the delays in processing claims handled by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The department’s 2005-06 annual report showed some startling figures in relation to the speed at which veterans’ claims are processed. Under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the time taken to process new impairment claims had increased from 26 days to 130 days since 2004-05. Under the same act, the mean time taken to process primary injury claims had gone from 90 days to 146 days since 2004-05. These figures are disgraceful. It is outrageous that, at a time when our veterans need our support, they are left waiting months for a reply.

Labor senators pursued the matter of claims-processing times at last month’s budget estimates, and we will continue to pursue that matter, particularly in the light of the reduction in staffing numbers at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs which has been made to accommodate the budget restraints imposed on the department by the government—a government that continues to fail our veterans.

While I have the opportunity, I would like to commend the numerous veterans groups and organisations that are amongst the most tenacious advocates for their constituents and whose hard work has seen incremental advances for veterans such as those we see in this bill. But you have to ask, as more of our older veterans are dying or succumbing to the impact of their service related injuries and illnesses: who will continue to keep the government accountable for the responsibility we all have to our veterans community? You certainly would not want to rely on the government to do it—a government which increasingly governs according to the Prime Minister’s standing in the polls. You would not want to rely on the government to do the right thing of its own volition when it comes to protecting and caring for our veterans.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.