Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition opposes schedule 2 in the following terms:

(2)   Schedule 2, page 10 (line 1) to page 15 (line 16), TO BE OPPOSED.

I want to talk about a number of matters today. I do have some questions for Senator Feeney, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, but I want to start the discussion on my amendment by again reiterating that the opposition strongly supports schedules (1) and (3). We do so in relation to schedule (1) because in government we had a very proud history of assistance for POWs and we do so in relation to schedule (3) because it makes eminent sense. We support the government on both of these matters.

The issue, both from the opposition's point of view and from the point of view of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee with its dissenting report, and from many within the ex-service community, is schedule (2). The onus has been placed on the government to establish why this amendment is required now. Part of that onus, quite rightly, would involve, one would have thought, discussions between the government and the ex-service community on the justification for this schedule, in particular the outcome of the Smith case and the longstanding legal position in relation to these matters, given that the government is unable to say for sure whether anyone will be or will not be adversely impacted by the measures in schedule (2). In the budget, the government said that it wanted to spend $2.7 million to put in place processes to ensure that previous requirements for offsetting and identification of potential offsetting cases were made clearer. The obvious question to be asked about this is: why not get your systems in place first? What is the mad rush to go ahead with schedule (2) now, particularly with the degree of nervousness within the ex-service community on this matter? What is the requirement to do so now?

What really worries me and the rest of the opposition, as well as other senators in this place and the ex-service community, is the fact that there has been no consultation on this. The Smith case was decided in 2009. There was no consultation with the RSL, for example, prior to the budget. Prior to the budget, there was no discussion with the RSL on the budget measure. Given that everyone knew the circumstances surrounding the Smith case, and given that it had been discussed at the roundtable and other forums before that, why not consult with the ex-service community? Why not let them have some input into it? But it was actually worse than that. Even after the budget, the government still refused to discuss this until there was a referral to the Senate committee, and only then did the government start consultation with the ex-service community.

To make matters worse, today we have learnt that the government's partners in crime in the running of this country, the Australian Greens—the Gillard-Brown government—were given the opportunity to see this revised explanatory memorandum well in advance of today's debate. Was Senator Xenophon shown that? Was the opposition shown that? Was the RSL shown that? Was the Vietnam Veterans Federation shown that? Was Legacy shown that? No, they were not. They were told that something would be coming, that there would be an amendment to the EM which would clarify it. They have not, on my understanding, to this day—certainly not of an hour and a half ago—been given the opportunity to see that amended EM. The parliamentary secretary has got to stand up here when I finish and say why the Australian Greens are deserving of this but the opposition is not. Forget the opposition! Why were the RSL, Legacy and the Vietnam Veterans Federation not given the opportunity to see this, given that the RSL attended the Senate inquiry and the Vietnam Veterans Federation, on my understanding at least, made a submission—if not, they have certainly written to me on the matter. So what is this about lack of consultation? Why is it that the spokesperson for the Australian Greens gets the opportunity to see this but the rest of us do not? On what basis does the government justify that? This is a matter of very, very significant concern to the ex-service community. They want to know that this schedule is not going to have a negative impact on anyone else and they, quite rightly, have been pursuing the government to get those guarantees. The government had the opportunity to consult on this matter. Why was my office not told the content of this revised EM?

Why did the government choose to speak to the Greens about this rather than speaking to the ex-service community, when the President of the RSL himself had taken the time to appear before that committee and expressed some very significant concerns about this matter. I will read them for the parliamentary secretary. Rear Admiral Doolan said:

The RSL view is that it is much better to have the legislation being the basis for all these matters than to have it by regulation.

That underpins the concerns of the ex-service organisation in relation to this matter.

I am sure that the Greens spokesperson felt very special getting the heads up about this. But surely the Greens felt some necessity to ensure that other people knew about it rather than doing a dirty deal with the government? What a start that is! Why not come to us and say: 'What do you think about this? You've got amendments on the table. You've had them there for some time. We know schedule 2 is an issue for you; why not come and have a talk to us about what that amended EM said?' Why not have the courtesy to go to Legacy, the RSL and others, show them the revised EM and ask for their opinion? Why not do them that courtesy?

Senator Wright interjecting—

You say you did. Are you saying, Senator, that you did or did not. If you did, I will apologise and sit down. But if you did not—

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a minute, I will speak then.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. I will look forward to that. I think I know the answer on the back of that because I would have thought it was a great opportunity to sit me down. If you have not taken that, that is your issue and not mine.

Let us look at our other concerns in relation to this. As I am sure the parlia­mentary secretary has been told by now, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the RSL are extremely concerned about this matter being dealt with by regulation. I will tell you what else they will be concerned about. I read from the last part of the addendum to the explanatory memorandum:

The Repatriation Commission will be issuing appropriate policy guidance to the Department of Veterans' Affairs staff to ensure offsetting occurs in line with the legislation and long-standing practices outlined above. Ex-service organisations will be consulted during the development of this material.

'Ex-service organisations will be consulted during the development of this material.' Why would they have any faith that they are going to be consulted about this when they were not consulted prior to the budget? They were not consulted until this matter was referred off to a Senate inquiry and they have not been consulted in relation to the addendum to the explanatory memorandum. Why would they have any confidence at all either that they are going to be consulted or their views are going to be listened to?

If you come back to me and say that you have put in place the IT systems, which we support—and I accept the words of the department that they need to ascertain whether there are going to be further offsetting issues—then we will talk to you about this schedule. But we are not prepared to take this from legislation into regulation. We do not believe the undertakings are sufficient to enable us to support it going from legislation to regulation.

I am amazed, quite frankly, that the government itself is prepared to impose a layer of risk on this by bringing this schedule in now. Get the system sorted out—we support you in getting the system sorted out—then come back into this chamber and say: 'We've got the systems worked out. We are confident that those systems will mean there will be no adverse impact for any veteran and we need to change the legislation to enable things to be done by way of regulation.' At that stage we will be quite happy to talk to you about it, but we are not prepared to take the authority of this chamber and give it to the department by way of potential regulation or other inter­pretation. We are not prepared to remove the right of this chamber on this matter. I am absolutely amazed that the government is prepared to do so. Get the systems sorted out. We support your systems being sorted out. It seems a lot of money but if that is the view of what is required to sort the systems out, go for it; it has our support. But do not come here and put the cart before the horse.

I say to the Greens that if they are serious about ensuring that there is no adverse impact for any veteran then they will abandon the quite obscene sign-up to this addendum to the EM and they will say to the government as well, 'You come back when you have put your systems in place and then we will talk about whether schedule 2 is required.' The government has failed to justify this schedule. The government has been told by the ex-service organisations that they do not support this schedule. The government has been asked by those ex-service organisations not to rush into this because the ex-service organisations quite rightly want to be 100 per cent sure that there will be no adverse impact. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary, given everything I have said today, can tell me this: what is the requirement for this to be done now, prior to the systems being put in place? Why can this schedule not be removed? I will speak to the minister as soon as those systems are in place and both he and I are confident that there will be no adverse impact. Then we can get it through this place very, very quickly. But at the moment there is no justification. At the moment the ex-service organisations are opposed to this. The parliamentary secretary has the opportunity to actually support the removal of this schedule, get the systems in place and then come back so we can talk about it. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to endeavour to respond to some of the points made by Senator Ronaldson. Firstly, I will turn my attention to the question of the explanatory memor­andum. As I comprehend it, the Senate com­mittee suggested that additional information be inserted into the explanatory memor­andum to make it clear that established offsetting practices will not change as a result of the amendments. The additional information also includes an explanation of the interaction between chapter 19 of the Guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions and the offsetting provisions. It is my understanding that ex-service organisa­tions are aware that the government is now making changes and that in large part those changes reflect requests of government by those organisations.

As to the mystery of when and how the addendum came to be lodged, I cannot really assist Senator Ronaldson except to say that I understand it was lodged with the Table Office on Friday. I will allow Senator Ronaldson to pursue the rest of the mystery as he sees fit.

In response to the opposition's allegation that the government has failed to fully justify the need for a change I would point out that the rationale behind the amendments has been explained in the budget materials, in the explanatory memorandum and at the committee hearings. I will reiterate that the amendments will not change the operation of the offsetting provisions but merely clarify and affirm the longstanding policy of numerous governments in relation to offsetting disability pension compensation. The clarification of the legislation will assist veterans, their representatives and others involved in such matters to understand how the offsetting arrangements operate.

It is critical for the government to place on the record that the proposed amendments will not and cannot result in a double offset as has been alleged. When the Guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions is used, the offsetting provisions cannot apply in respect of that impairment. The operation of the Guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensionsdoes not fully cover all cases in which individuals have different conditions attributed to an incapacity. In essence, the operation of that guide covers only one potential set of circumstances. The proposed amendments are necessary to deal with circumstances that are not dealt with under that guide and in which it is not possible to use that guide.

As for the assertion that the government did not consult with the ex-service community prior to incorporating these amendments, let me first make the point that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has engaged in appropriate consultation with the ex-service community in relation to the full Federal Court's decision in Commonwealth v Smith. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has consulted with the ex-service community from budget night onwards about the proposed amendments to the offsetting provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the confidentiality restrictions associated with budget measures and legislation.

On the question of the computer software and the changing of systems, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is committing staff and information technology resources to improving existing policy, procedural and other resource material concerning the application of the offsetting provisions. This work would be taking place regardless of the proposed amendments now being considered. This work includes the improve­ments of existing systems and the creation of better tools for staff to manage claims for which offsetting is required. It will also work to improve communication with affected clients and interested stakeholders. The provision of policy guidance material to staff, particularly in areas of complexity such as this one, is longstanding common practice.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. When was the addendum to the EM provided to the RSL, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and Legacy?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that those ex-service organisations are aware that the government is making changes. I am unable to advise as to whether they have cited the addendum, but I would be happy to provide that advice as soon as I can clarify that point.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought that is absolutely pivotal to our discussions today. There are a lot of advisers sitting in the box over there beside the parliamentary secretary, so I am sure he can get a very quick response for me. I ask him to do that as a matter of urgency by turning his head to his left and asking the question of those advisers.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I congratulate you on your intrepid eye, but I have already asked that question and the answer I have provided in these proceedings is as good as I can do at this point.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the basis of the parliamentary secretary's response to my question, it is quite clear that the RSL, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and Legacy have not been provided with the opportunity to look at this amended EM to get their feedback. On that basis, I cannot see how this chamber can possibly proceed with this matter until those organisations have seen the addendum. I think that should be done as a matter of urgency and I think this bill should be delayed until that occurs. I move:

That the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is probably the last contribution I can make to this—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to put forthwith the motion moved by Senator Ronaldson. The question is that the committee report progress.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (12:22): The noes have it.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the ayes have it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (12:22): A division is required, but this is tricky because we cannot have any divisions until after 12.30 pm, so we cannot get out of this committee for another six or so minutes. I will call Senator Wright, who might want to respond until 12.30 to some of your earlier points. I have no other way but to continue in that manner.

Point of order. My understanding from matters that occurred earlier is that once a division is called for it will put any further debate back until the appropriate time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (12:23): That is correct, but under the agreement between the parties in the Senate I cannot call the division until 12.30 pm. We are in a bind here. Your question must be put immediately, which I cannot do until 12.30. Once that is voted on, depending on the outcome of that vote, that would determine whether or not we progress with this bill. So we have a five-minute delay.

I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

I thought it would be! But only for five minutes. We are insisting on this matter being put and voted on, because we do not believe that within 24 hours the government cannot ascertain from the Vietnam Veterans Federation, the RSL and Legacy whether this addendum to the EM clarifies their concerns. I am completely and utterly gobsmacked—to use an expression my children use—that the government is not actually asking the question, because this may well resolve this issue. If the RSL, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and Legacy come back and say that the addendum satisfies all their queries, my view would be that the opposition would look very seriously at that. If they come back and say that it still does not clarify their concerns, then that position would surely require a change of attitude from the government in relation to the progress of this matter.

This is not a political point between the government and the opposition. This is about whether or not we are prepared to take a risk in relation to entitlements and in relation to people's futures. Surely it is incumbent upon the chamber to do that. For the sake of just four, five or six hours, go back to the RSL. I will call it now: if I get a phone call from the RSL, from the Vietnam Veterans Federation and from Legacy that this amendment satisfies their concerns I give the parlia­mentary secretary an undertaking that we will not oppose this schedule.

The chamber needs to understand that we are opposed to this schedule because those who know best what the likely outcome of this schedule might be have been opposed to it themselves. This debate is not rocket science. If those organisations are concerned about it, then we should be concerned about it. If their concerns have not been clarified to their satisfaction then we should be con­cerned about what the outcomes might be. Why not just send this addendum off to these three groups and then can come back to us. We can put this off until tomorrow. I give the parliamentary secretary and the minister my undertaking that if these groups come back and say, 'That has satisfied our queries,' that will be the end of the matter and it will go through. But we are not prepared to stand here when those three organisations, and presumably others, have expressed that they are dissatisfied with what has been promised to date and that they still have concerns. I cannot believe that Senator Wright, whom I have known for a long time, would not be prepared to accept that we need to get this clarified. We can then move on from this matter. I do not want to see anything occur that is going to impact on other parts of the bill, but I am not going to cop it today by supporting a schedule that is not supported by very significant sections of the ESOs. Let them have a look at this amended EM. Let them come back and tell the government they are happy with it. If I get the same phone call, this matter will be dealt with and we can move on to other legislation. You have my firm undertaking that if Legacy, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the RSL say that the addendum to the EM meets their concerns that will be the end of the matter. But we are not prepared to sell these organisations down the river. We are not prepared potentially to risk the rights of veterans in this country. We are not prepared to take this from being legislation to being a regulation. I cannot believe that anyone in this chamber would not be prepared to accept that we need to get some clarification about the addendum from those who are opposed to it. I am sure my colleague would be very happy to hear from the RSL, because my colleague sat in on this inquiry. Senator Fawcett was there and he heard the National President of the RSL expressing his concerns. If the National President of the RSL comes back to Senator Fawcett, Senator Eggleston and me and says, 'We are prepared to accept what is in the addendum,' then the matter gets through.

I ask the government: please, just for the sake of four or five hours, go and get some advice in relation to this. It should have been done beforehand. Everyone knows it should have been done beforehand. It was not, but let's just get on with it. I will have nothing further to say about the lack of consultation if we defer this, find out what it is and come back. We can get it listed. We can get it slotted in. We can get it done and dusted very quickly. There are no more speakers. We are in committee. We can deal with this. Let's deal with it on the back of reasonable knowledge about the people who are not owed a disservice from this chamber by not being consulted in relation to it. I ask the Greens: if the government is not prepared to accept this, please support us for the sake of literally four or five hours. It may well be that this can be clarified this afternoon—I do not know. But it is a matter of getting this material to those organisations who are owed the courtesy of consultation by everyone in the chamber—not just the government, not just the opposition, not just the Greens and not just Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan. Everyone in this chamber owes them the courtesy of finding out what their views are in relation to this matter.

Question put:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided. [12:36]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Senator Collins did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question negatived.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens do not support the opposition's amendment. As I pointed out in my speech in the second reading debate, despite initial concerns about the effects of schedule 2 which were raised prior to the inquiry, during the inquiry and with me subsequently, I have now satisfied myself that schedule 2 is not intended to and will not effectively change the previous practice in relation to offsetting. I am satisfied that it will affirm and clarify the existing situation and that it is appropriate that schedule 2 remain in the bill. The Australian Greens are not prepared to jeopardise the passage of the beneficial provisions in schedule 1 of the bill nor the sensible rationalisation provisions in schedule 3 and to hold up consideration of the bill because of concerns that have been raised about schedule 2, having satisfied ourselves that those concerns have been adequately addressed in changes to the explanatory memorandum.

I have been able to come to this view because I have been at pains to consult with and consider the concerns of the RSL and the VVFA and to discuss those concerns in some detail with the government. Although my motives have been somewhat impugned today, I would like to just put on the record that when looking at legislation I am keen to seek the best outcomes possible through consideration of the legislation, consultation and, where possible, collaboration with inter­ested parties. I initiated these discussions both with the organisations that I consulted with and with the government and, having heard those concerns, negotiated to address them to see if an alternative way of addressing the concerns was available. I have acted in good faith.

I cannot answer on what attempts the opposition made to enter into fruitful negotiations with the government about their concerns. I cannot be held responsible for that and the Australian Greens cannot be held responsible for what negotiations were carried out. What I do know is that, having heard the concerns of the RSL and the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia, and having had further discussions about those, I was satisfied that the changes to the explanatory memorandum would address those concerns. Although I was not at liberty to necessarily show the explanatory memorandum to the organisations, because that was not within my control, I conveyed to those organisations my view that that was adequate. I felt that I had heard their concerns and that they understood that their concerns had been addressed in the explanatory memorandum, although of course they might not be fully satisfied.

The suggestion that somehow the current situation is enshrined only in legislation is misleading in that there is already an administrative practice and discretion, and I am satisfied that schedule 2 of the bill will not change that situation and that indeed there will be further steps taken as set out in the explanatory memorandum to develop guidelines in consultation with ex-service organisations to direct and guide the decision making of the officials of the Department of Veterans' Affairs so that there will be no effective change to what has been agreed to be an effective, fair and good working system up until now. So the Australian Greens are not able to support the opposition's amendments.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I for one do not impugn Senator Wright's intentions or motives in relation to this. I just want to make that clear. I am not doing that. I have concerns, though, because the onus is on the government to ensure that these amendments will not have unintended consequences. I commend Senator Wright for her diligence and the genuine nature in which she has approached this particular issue. But I did support the coalition in relation to the last division with respect to progress being reported. In other words: I supported the delaying of this bill until we heard from some of the key stakeholders—in particular, from the RSL. Now, unless the Parlia­mentary Secretary for Defence, Senator Feeney, is able to provide the chamber with information that the RSL has seen the precise wording of this addendum to the explanatory memorandum and has had a chance to consider the precise wording, I for one am reluctant for this bill to proceed. Given the will of the chamber is that the bill does proceed, I think the appropriate course of action is that the Senate examine forensically schedule 2 and the addendum to the explanatory memorandum, which has a arisen as a result of the diligence and hard work of Senator Wright. But there are still legitimate questions to ask about the potential effects.

Given that the RSL has commented on this previously and that it was a participant to the Senate inquiry into the bill, in which Senator Fawcett, among others, had an active role—I acknowledge Senator Fawcett's service to this nation, given his distinguished background in the Australian Defence Force—the gaping concern to me is that, it is important we find out what the key stakeholders are saying. So, if I may, I ask the parliamentary secretary: since this matter was last raised in committee has there been any sign off, any communication, from the Returned and Services League or other key stakeholder groups, such as the Vietnam Veterans Federation, in relation to the addendum to the explanatory memorandum to this bill?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot really go much further than what I have said before in the debate—that is, that the government, as I am advised, has consulted with ex-service organisations and that they have been apprised of the issues and the principles that are manifest in the addendum. Whether they have seen the actual addendum itself, I am unfortunately not in a position to advise the Senate. In the event, Senator Xenophon, that you require the stated support of the RSL in order to support this bill, I am not in a position to assist you. Obviously, it is not for me to say what is the position of the RSL or of any of the other ex-service organisations. That is obviously a matter for them. As for the consultation that has taken place with them, I have nothing further to add. Insofar as your point goes to schedule 2, and the onus being on the government, all I can do is repeat the point made in my second reading speech—that is, these amendments are clarifying and affirming the legislation and will not result in any change to the compensation offsetting practices currently being applied.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful to Senator Feeney for his response on behalf the government, but something is missing here. Is it not within the wherewithal of Senator Feeney, repre­senting the government, to advise whether the addendum to the explanatory memor­andum was actually shown to the RSL? I do not think is it an unreasonable question. If the RSL has been shown it, and has not said anything about it, that might, if it does not solve the problem, go some considerable way to resolving this issue. If the RSL is acquiescent, if it is comfortable, about this addendum to the explanatory memorandum, it would reassure me about this issue. Is it not possible to establish whether the RSL has been shown a copy of the addendum to the explanatory memorandum that was filed this morning?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I repeat what I said: I cannot give you satisfaction on these points.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a Rolling Stones song about that.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. While I can confirm that there have been discussions, and that the RSL and others have been apprised of the issues that are dealt with in the addendum, I cannot attest to whether they have seen the addendum or to whether they support it or its contents. I am not in a position to assist you on this point. I repeat that, if you are seeking their consent before you support this bill, I am unable to help your decision-making process.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a Rolling Stones song, Mr Chairman, about not being able to get any satisfaction, and it was alluded to by Senator Feeney. There is another Rolling Stones song that goes along the lines of: you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you might just get what you need. I know Senator Feeney is a big Rolling Stones fan—I can just tell. He is a Jaggerite; a Mick Jagger acolyte. All I want is to establish whether this particular addendum has been shown to the RSL. Given the RSL's involvement in this, does Senator Feeney concede it is quite reasonable for the RSL to be shown this addendum to the explanatory memorandum, which arose out of some considerable negotiations between Senator Wright's office, on behalf of the Greens, and the government? Again I commend Senator Wright for the work she has done on this. It is not a difficult issue. I just want to get what I need.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think I can give you what you need, Senator Xenophon. You are asking me to describe, and essentially to give undertakings to the Senate about, a consultation process that I have not been a party to and that I cannot describe in any terms other than those I have described it in. I am not able to report to you or to the Senate about the RSL's views on this addendum. It is as simple as that.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can Senator Feeney advise whether it is within the knowledge of the department or whether it is within the knowledge of the minister's office that this addendum to the explanatory memorandum has been forwarded to the RSL? Is that something that would be within the knowledge of the department or the minister's office?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a topical question. Until I have an answer, I cannot assist. The best advice I have at the moment—I will clarify this as quickly as I am able—is that the RSL have certainly been consulted on the issues which have given rise to the addendum. As to whether or not they have seen the addendum, I simply do not know.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate Senator Feeney is trying to be as helpful as possible in the circumstances, but in terms of general protocols, would it be within the knowledge of the minister's office or the department as to whether they have provided a copy of the addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the RSL?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As soon as I have an answer to that I will share it with you.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are here on behalf of the government, Senator Feeney. You are also the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence. We have been debating this since 10 o'clock this morning. Do not tell me, when you have got one of the minister's advisers sitting beside you, that you cannot give this chamber an answer to a very simple question. Were they provided with it or not? How does it take three hours to ascertain whether the RSL has been given a copy of this? The longer you drag this out, the more obvious I think the response is. If they have not, just say, 'No, they have not been' and then I will make the comment that they should have been—which I am sure you will not. Have they or have they not been shown this for comment? It is a very, very simple question. Senator Xenophon and I want to know the answer.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure there was a question in Senator Ronaldson's contribution. As always, I take his words of wisdom with a true heart.

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

I draw the Senate's attention to the evidence given by the RSL during the inquiry around the issue of consultation. The minister had made comment that there was wide consultation. Does the senator believe that consultation is required? Rear Admiral Doolan said:

The point we made earlier on was that the first we knew of this was when the legislation was brought forward. When we became aware of the legislation, we were on a short timescale to provide input to this Senate committee, which we did.

It became apparent that it was a prebudget eve briefing that they had received on the information. When we brought this up with DVA and asked, 'Did you consult?' one of the officials responded:

As the RSL have said, we regularly provide a prebudget briefing, and that is on the day of the budget. In that briefing we explained a whole range of measures coming through in the budget, including offsetting, and explained that the intention of the amendment … But it is true that there was no extensive prebudget consultation about the amendment itself.

So they clearly said that there was no extensive prebudget consultation, which puts lie to the claim that there has been widespread consultation. My question is: do you support the need to consult with key stakeholders in this whole process?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. Yes, Senator, I hope you will have noted that in one of my earlier contributions I did touch upon the fact that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been engaged in consultation with ex-service organisations and that is obviously something that is of great importance and of great continuing importance. I think it is fair to say that in every interaction I have ever had with Veterans' Affairs, whether through the estimates process or through debate in this place, the importance of those service organisations and the perspectives they bring are acknowledged and understood by all.

What I cannot do is get up in this place and assert the opinions of the RSL; that is for them to assert. I am not able to comment on their level of support for the actions of this government. That is something that only they can properly do. I am I think properly constrained in terms of speaking for another organisation. The RSL will announce in public what they do or do not think about matters as they arise.

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

The question was not at all to ask you to comment on the RSL; the question was going to the point that the government has claimed there is consultation. You have just made the claim again that the department engages in consultation. In broad terms I accept that that does occur on a frequent basis. What we are talking about here specifically is schedule 2, this offsetting provision. What became very clear during the committee hearing was that in fact there had been no consultation. There had been a briefing, a one-way flow of information, the night before the budget, which does not give anybody any confidence that there has been a serious attempt to consult. The question is—and it is raised again around this explanatory memorandum—does the government believe in the value of consultation with key stakeholders and will you give them the courtesy of the opportunity to provide feedback before this becomes part of law?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. I do believe in the importance of consultation. The question we are considering of course is the passage of legislation through this place. That is the question before us. That is the question where the government has a view. I now invite the senator to turn his mind to that issue.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just been advised by the Vietnam Veterans Federation that they have not seen the changes to the explanatory memorandum resulting from their concerns. They understand that the Greens had negotiated some amendments, but they had not seen them. Senator Wright, I was reflecting on the fact that you had been given these changes—not you personally. The fact remains that you were shown amendments to the EM by the government to ensure your support for schedule 2, knowing that the government did not have the support of the opposition in relation to schedule 2 because of the concerns of the ex-service community. You ultimately, Senator Wright, will need to make a decision in about two minutes time as to whether you think it is appropriate for one political party to negotiate the terms of an explanatory memorandum when the ex-service organisations, who have expressed a real concern about this, have indicated in a Senate inquiry that there has not been appropriate consultation. You will have an opportunity to say whether you think that is acceptable.

This is not a reflection on you at all, Senator Wright, but it is most certainly a reflection on your party. Following all the talk from the Australian Greens about consultation and doing the right thing, about making sure the process is right, here is an opportunity for them to prove that this was not a political stitch-up between the government and the Greens in relation to this change in the addendum to the explanatory memorandum. Here is the opportunity for her to say that they actually do agree with due process. Here is the opportunity for her, in about two minutes time, to say that they are not prepared to let this go through until they have canvassed appropriately and properly the views of the ex-service organisations and only then will they support the three schedules; only then will they support schedule 2.

I direct this to the parliamentary secretary as well as to Senator Wright: having had confirmation that the Vietnam Veterans Federation has not seen the changes, how can this chamber possibly countenance this matter being dealt with now? How can we possibly countenance completely ignoring the views of organisations who have been participants in this process? How can the Australian Greens support such an abuse of process by forcing this legislation to be dealt with before we get the views of those ex-service organisations? How can the parliamentary secretary and the government possibly countenance forcing this chamber to deal with this matter until they have actually consulted with the participants in this process, one of whom took substantial time to involve themselves in the Senate inquiry process? How can that be a reasonable outcome for this chamber? How can anyone sitting in the gallery say this is an appropriate process for this parliament to be involved in?

This is simple—this is not knocking off a bit of legislation which has to go back to the other place and then possibly come here and then become new legislation. All we on this side are asking—and I will speak for Senator Xenophon—is for the government to assure us that the consultation we think is appropriate has been carried out. Then we will deal with this matter. Either these organisations will be happy with it and it will go through or, if they are still not happy with it, the government has to make a decision about whether it is prepared to go against their wishes. And for what? The government says it is about to spend money anyway getting in place the systems it says it needs to address potential issues further down the track—and I said I accept that. So it can go and spend the money and then we will worry about what is in schedule 2. But it is totally inappropriate for this matter to be dealt with today before proper consultation has been carried out. These are not some mickey mouse groups that have sprung up after a good spring rain. This is the RSL, this is Legacy, this is the Vietnam Veterans Federation. Surely to goodness they deserve the respect of this chamber enough to be consulted on this matter. I move:

That the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question put.

The committee divided.    [13.11]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Senator Wong did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question negatived.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will reflect firstly on Senator Ronaldson's references to Senator Wright's involvement in this matter. I have a slightly different perspective. I do not think it is incumbent upon Senator Wright to enter into widespread consultation with key groups; I think the primary responsibility for that rests with the government. That is what I think is fair. I acknowledge Senator Wright's hard work on this and I acknowledge the spirit in which she undertook those negotiations. From my perspective, it is fair to say that it is the government's obligation to consult with the key stakeholders, not necessarily that of Senator Wright or the Greens. So I have a slightly different perspective on that.

But I do agree wholeheartedly with Senator Ronaldson, who has become my spokesperson on this particular issue—maybe more broadly; we will wait and see—that it is unwise and unsafe to proceed further in the absence of hearing from the RSL, from the Vietnam Veterans Federation, from Legacy and from other key stake­holders who participated fully in the Senate inquiry and who have a longstanding interest in this. I understand, however, that it is the will of the chamber to proceed to deal with these matters now. It is therefore incumbent upon me to ask the parliamentary secretary, Senator Feeney, a number of specific questions relating to the explanatory memorandum.

I note that the explanatory memorandum starts off by saying that the proposed amendments will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions. My first question is: to what extent will these amendments change current arrangements at all if they do not change the compensation offsetting provisions? Is it the case that, whilst they will not strictly change the current compensation offsetting pro­visions, they may change the way in which matters are dealt with in terms of compensation offsetting? It is a technical question but, given that so much of this will turn on technical issues, it is only the first of a number of such questions I have with respect to the explanatory memorandum.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I now have some advice of a more specific nature concerning the consultation process which has taken place.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm listening.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excellent. Perhaps we will get you some satisfaction, Senator. Perhaps Senator Ronaldson's days as your spokesperson are numbered. I understand that the RSL and the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia have seen all parts of the addendum with the exception of the final paragraph—that is, the paragraph beginning 'The Repatriation Commission'. I can advise the Senate that the discussions with VVFA and DVA on concerns about double dipping have occurred, that there have been discussions between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the operational working party, which is comprised of ex-service organisations, on the text of the explanatory memorandum. There has been a discussion between the minister's office, the RSL and the VVFA about the explanatory memorandum. Further, I am advised that John Hodges of the RSL has indicated he is broadly supportive and I note again that the explanatory memorandum does not change anything—that it spells out the current operations and sets out the fact that there will be further consultations.

Senator Xenophon interjecting—

I understand both are true. These amendments result in no change. They are clarifying and affirming only and no disability pension will be affected.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am perplexed. We are debating amendments which the government has just said will result in no change. If we are debating amendments which will result in no change, why then have the amendments put in the first place? To be fair to Senator Feeney, he has said that they will result in clarifying the current provisions. I think that is the summary of what Senator Feeney has outlined. I am grateful to Senator Feeney for finally responding—that is, for the government finally being able to respond; it was not Senator Feeney's fault—to the issue I raised with Senator Ronaldson. If these amendments will result in no change, as we have just heard, to what extent will they result in clarifying the established compensation offsetting practices and, to the extent that they do clarify the offsetting practices, does the clarification in itself result in some change in the way the current provisions are being dealt with?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are obviously talking about the second measure, clarifying and affirming the original intention of the compensation offsetting policy. You ask the question: if these amendments do not change anything, why are we doing this? I guess the answer to that question is that these amendments are in response to a decision of the full Federal Court in Commonwealth of Australia v Smith, which decision highlights the need to clarify and affirm these aspects of the legislation. That is what we are doing.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the parliamentary secretary please say that there is absolutely no dispute about the government's position? The parliamentary secretary is saying that the RSL has been provided with a copy of the addendum. Is that right?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the exception of that final paragraph.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you are absolutely sure about that, Parliamentary Secretary?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the advice I have.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even if you are right, and my understanding is that you are wrong—that is certainly my advice—when were they provided with the last paragraph? Were Legacy and the VVFA part of that? I am happy for the parliamentary secretary to get some advice.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the RSL saw this document without that final paragraph on 29 August. I am advised that the RSL has seen the whole of it today for the first time, including that final paragraph. Further, I am advised that the final paragraph was inserted on Friday as a consequence of discussions between the government and the Greens.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Parliamentary Secretary, you say that the RSL was provided with a copy of this addendum, bar the last paragraph.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. My advice is that they were shown a copy on 29 August by way of their participation in the operational working group.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were not provided with a copy?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I believe they were not.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Vietnam Veterans Federation?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except insofar as they participated in that operational working group, they were separately provided a copy last week. They are in the same situation: they have not seen that final paragraph.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How was the Vietnam Veterans Federation provided with a copy?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the minister's office.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Were they emailed that? Were they faxed a copy? How was it delivered?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By email.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And to whom?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, if we could just take the questions and answers in sequence; otherwise, your mikes will not be live and you will not be recorded.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand it was sent by email to Mr Graham Walker.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Were the discussions between the Greens and the government on the back of discussions that you or anyone else had with the RSL?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my understanding that, as a result of the committee and its recommendation that additional points be made in the EM, there were discussions with the Greens and ex-service organisations in order to realise that committee recommendation.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you are telling the Senate today that, by late this morning, the only people who had seen this document in its entirety were the Greens; is that correct?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is correct.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want to clarify something?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier I said it was 29 August. I would like to note for the record that I should have in fact said 26 August.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In what format was that? Where was it?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a meeting of the operational working group and that was where the RSL had an opportunity to sight the addendum—without, I remind you, that final paragraph.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the RSL, the Vietnam Veterans Federation or Legacy responded to you formally today in relation to the addendum in its entirety?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have not received any formal communication from those bodies.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If indeed they were opposed to the addendum in that it did not satisfy their requirements, would you be proceeding in any event in relation to schedule 2 of this bill?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not our custom to answer hypothetical questions. We are talking here about a very specific issue and, indeed, one of great importance to many deserved folk. This is legislation that the government is pursuing, and it is pursuing it on the basis that it is good legislation, that it is required in the aftermath of the Smith decision, that it realises government policy which the government has been clearly expounding upon through the budget process, the budget and subsequently. Lastly, we are mindful of the fact that we are making changes here that we believe have the broad support of ex-service organisations.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Parliamentary Secretary, having said that you have shown the RSL a copy—and I want to place on the public record that the RSL were shown a copy—were they provided with a copy or was a copy circulated around the room on 26 August?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think my words have properly conveyed what transpired. The operational working group was afforded an opportunity to sight the addendum, and that is the extent of it.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Were they advised that it was a draft or were they advised that it was a final document?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that they were advised that it was a final version.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are absolutely sure about that?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it would be prudent for me to take that on notice. I have provided you only with the best information I have to hand.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it would be very, very prudent to take that on notice. I would not think this bill would come back until well after question time. Unless the government is going to gag me, I will be here at 10 seconds to two. I assure the parliamentary secretary that, until we find out what the views of the RSL, the Vietnams Veterans Federation and Legacy are, as is only appropriate, we will continue debating this matter. I will be very careful about the way I put this: I am taking the parliamentary secretary at face value because I acknowledge that the parlia­mentary secretary does not have personal knowledge of this matter and the parlia­mentary secretary has taken advice from departmental and ministerial staff on this matter. If it is incorrect, I will hold him to account only to the extent that he was providing the chamber with information he had been provided with. But he will not be surprised to know that I will be very deeply concerned if the advice that has been given today is incorrect. If, indeed, it is correct that the document was passed around the table on 26 August, was there a consultation process put in place for that circulated document?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you repeat the question.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What consultation process was put in place following the circulation of that document at the meeting on 26 August?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that, besides the discussion that occurred at the operational working group and the opportunity the RSL had on that occasion to sight the addendum, there has been no formal consultation process around the addendum.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking clarification of the matters that have been raised by the parliamentary secretary. Given that, allegedly, this document was circulated but the participants were not provided with a copy—I think we have agreed on that—at a meeting, how many people were at that meeting and what length of time did they have to read the document?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to have to take that question on notice. I do not have the minutes of that meeting to hand.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On what basis were those peak organisations not provided with the amended addendum to the explanatory memorandum?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated, the RSL was provided with one today. The final paragraph was not designed and inserted until Friday.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take it that, had this matter not been pursued by me, Senator Xenophon, Senator Fawcett and others, they would not have been aware of this until this bill had become a fait accompli in effect?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is barely a question in that rhetoric. If I understand it, yes, you are right, they did not see a complete copy of the addendum until it was shown to the RSL today and became a matter for debate in this chamber this afternoon.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At what time was it provided with a full copy?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to need a little bit of time to get forensic about that, but I understand it was at approximately 12 noon today.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are now really getting down to brass tacks with this. What you are saying is that a group which had been actively involved in this matter was actually not going to be provided with a copy of this until it was raised in this chamber. You were working on the basis, were you not, that this bill would be dealt with by the Senate today and the RSL would be provided with a full copy of the addendum after the event? Parliamentary Secretary, do you believe that is an appropriate course of action on behalf of the government?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, your histrionics and your rhetoric are simply about your delaying this debate rather than grappling with it. You might put forward the contention, if you will, that our consultation process has been inadequate—that is a matter for you and I am sure you will enliven that point to the best of your abilities—but the government's position on this is very clear and it is very simple. Arising from a decision of a full bench of the Federal Court, we were required to do the responsible and sensible thing and make amendments to this legislation so that the legislation is clear and effective. The amendments clarify and affirm the legislation. They will not result in any change to the compensation-offsetting practices currently being applied. We have made this point again and again and again.

You may very well seek to make the partisan political point that we have not consulted adequately with organisations about the fact that the amendments will not result in any change to the compensation-offsetting practices currently being applied, but that remains our point. We have prepared an addendum and we have done that in response to the Senate committee, to our discussions with the Greens party and to discussions with others. As for the forensic detail, emails and so forth, I have provided you with the very best information that I have to hand. The fundamental point remains the same—these are not mighty changes. They are not going to result in the current practices changing. They are not going to result in a diminution of entitlements.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad you believe that commentary about appropriate consultation is histrionics. I can give you some histrionics if you want it but I put this to you: is it histrionics to question the government about its consultation processes? Is it histrionics to say that it is inappropriate for one minor political party, which just happens to be your government partner, to get information that is not provided to ex-service organisations? As I said to you before, these are not groups that spring up after a good spring rain. These are the peak bodies in this country. Are you telling the chamber that it is histrionics to demand why any political party has an arrangement and a scenario of consultation when those groups that are actively and intimately involved in this process do not? If that is the government's definition of histrionics then, quite frankly, heaven help us.

The simple fact is that we have been advised today that the RSL was given a copy of this document only after this debate started and after the government had been caught out in relation to the lack of consultation. That is not histrionics. The simple fact is that if it had not been raised today this matter would have gone through without the RSL having had any input into it whatsoever; it would have been a fait accompli. The Vietnam Veterans Federation would not have had any input into it; it would have been a fait accompli. Legacy would not have had any input into it; it would have become a fait accompli. If that is the way that you want to carry out your consultation process, that is fine. If the Greens think that is an appropriate consultation process, that is fine. But everyone be on notice: what the Greens say and what the Greens do are often two entirely different matters.

The Greens were given the opportunity today to say, 'For the sake of three or four hours, we are going to clarify this situation and clarify whether those peak bodies are supportive of this addendum.' Then petty politics entered into this debate. You are not prepared for the sake of four or five hours to concede a bit of ground on this matter. You are driven by petty pride for a very simple matter. There is no reason why this chamber could not have dealt with this matter later today or in the morning—no reason at all. But petty pride means that the government and the Greens are not prepared to accept that the right thing should be done in this case. I am absolutely staggered that the Greens have been prepared to compromise themselves to this extent by not acknowledging that three or four hours can get some serious clarification. I am utterly amazed, given the need for the government and the department to maintain close working relationships with these ESOs, that they also have not been prepared for the sake of three or four hours to do so. If that is histrionics, you have got it.

I ask the parliamentary secretary: in the last paragraph, which, of course, has not been circulated to anyone other than the Greens and now the chamber today, when will the Repatriation Commission be issuing appropriate policy guidance, and has that been drafted yet?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That has not been drafted. The materials are under development.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put on the record again my understanding that the very reason the last paragraph in the explanatory memorandum was inserted was after I made an assiduous effort to consult with both the RSL and the VVFA to clarify their concerns. I took those concerns to the government as they concerned me as well, particularly in relation to the degree of discretion that was potentially available to the Repatriation Commission and decision makers in the Department of Veterans' Affairs in implementing the scheme that would be in effect once the amendments were passed. My understanding after quite a degree of discussion was that there have always been administrative arrangements in place; that there was no intention as a result of the amendments to change those administrative arrangements; that they had worked and had operated effectively over quite a significant period of time and that no complaints had been received from the veterans community about those administrative arrangements. But, to ameliorate the concerns that I had, which were directly being passed on because of my consultation with the RSL and the VVFA, there was an agreement to add a further paragraph in the explanatory memorandum to clarify that there would be specific guidelines drafted to ensure the situation did not change and that there would be consultation with the ex-service organisations to allow input into those guidelines to again assuage their concerns.

Rather than, as has been suggested, some mucky deal being done where the concerns of two significant veterans associations, the RSL and the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia, are ignored or undermined, in fact it is the opposite. Late on Friday I was still relaying to the government my concern about unintended consequences of the amendments if they were to pass. I then in full transparency contacted those organisations and spoke to members of those organisations and conveyed to them my view that the changes to the explanatory memorandum would satisfy their concerns and it satisfied my concerns that the ultimate effect of passing these amendments, particularly schedule 2, would not have unintended consequences that would make the lot of veterans worse given that the assurance all the way through has been that that would not be the case.

Having given a lot of consideration to this matter, the Greens were of the view that, rather than waste the valuable time of the chamber, where there are beneficial provisions that presumably some veterans are waiting to take effect, the prisoner of war recognition provisions and other sensible provisions that would allow a sensible rationalisation of two very similar allowances, rather than holding those up unnecessarily and having satisfied myself that I had been open and thoughtful and considerate of the concerns of the VVFA and the RSL, I formed the view that it was appropriate to support the bill. That is why the Greens have taken the position that we have taken.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the greatest respect to Senator Wright, this is actually not about whether she has or has not satisfied herself in relation to this matter. I am sure an enormous amount of due diligence has gone into this. I am not aware that Senator Wright is an expert in this field but she may well be and if she is then I apologise. But it is not actually a matter of Senator Wright satisfying herself; it is about Senator Wright and the Greens and the government satisfying themselves that indeed proper process has been followed. That is what it is all about, not whether Senator Wright has satisfied herself in relation to this. Senator Wright could have satisfied herself in relation to this by actually telling those organisations what was in this addendum to the explanatory memorandum and asking them. If they had said to her on the back of her going to them with the words from this addendum, 'I am satisfied with it,' then Senator Wright would be quite entitled to make the comments that she has. She actually would have tested her views in relation to this against the addendum. But she has not tested those views against the addendum. She has tested her views in relation to her interpretation, not on the back of what the peak bodies were saying about it. So, with the greatest respect, that is not sufficient investigative work.

The parliamentary secretary told me before that the work had started on these policies. What stage are they at? When did that commence and when will they be ready for ex-service organisation consultation?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Already policy advice is available. This advice is in plain-speaking language, which is easier for departmental staff and veterans and their advocates to understand. The policy has been available broadly speaking for a long time. While I am on my feet, I might also read into the transcript an email that has only just been received, at least by me. It is to Mr Ross Bain, who is the chief of staff to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and it is from Mr John Hodges. It reads:

Dear Ross

The RSL continues to oppose schedule 2 of this bill. However, if the Senate sees fit to pass this bill, the RSL would be comfortable with the amendment of the explanatory memorandum.

Kind regards

John M. Hodges

National Veterans Affairs Adviser

Returned Services League

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly. So we have spent the last three hours trying to ascertain what the views were of the ex-service organisations who have been involved in this process. Why was this not done beforehand? I am not suggesting for one minute that what has been given to Mr Bain, what you have read out, is not correct. But I want to consult with the RSL and the Vietnam Veterans Federation over question time and taking note and whatever time is there, and indeed if their position is that they are happy to let this go through then it will go through. But why was not this done at 10 past 10 this morning? Why have we gone through this charade trying to ascertain the views of these ex-service organisations, the charade of not knowing whether people had or had not been given documents, the charade about whether people had or had not been consulted. Three hours we have spent on this when we should have at an early stage had the sort of advice we are now starting to get through a drip feed.

I want to take up the parliamentary secretary's comment in relation to the policy guidance. I take it from what you have said that the Repatriation Commission has the view that they already have appropriate policy guidance in place to meet the requirements of the recently added but not distributed addendum to the EM.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that there is already guidance, that clearer and more comprehensive policy and procedure guidance is being developed and that that work has only just commenced.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to my question about the policy guidance, Parliamentary Secretary, you said that that work was already underway. You then said that that work has been done for some time. My question related specifically to the added but not distributed addendum to the explanatory memorandum. I suppose I am either entitled to say, 'Well, yes, it has been, and it has been there for some time,' or 'The work has just started.' Which one is it? Has it been there for some time and therefore, if it has, that is what the department will be relying on? Or has it started in the last three hours? You cannot have it both ways, Parliamentary Secretary. Either the work has already been done and you are going to rely on it—shake your head as you may, I am only quoting your words. I am just quoting your words, old boy, and the simple fact is that you said it had been underway for some time and they were already there. You are now telling me they have just started it. Given that, according to your comrade in arms from the Greens, she was still negotiating with the government late on Friday afternoon, have they started that work since nine o'clock this morning? Is that what you are telling us? Or, indeed, has all this work been done? Was that just put in to satisfy a few whims, according to you—and, indeed, the consultation will not be required because the decisions have already been made? If it is there and has been there for some time, why do we need this particular piece of legislation?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a merciful thing for the taxpayers of this country that you are not paid by the word, Senator. It is also, I think, worth noting that after your extraordinary performance denouncing how long this process has taken you might very well reflect on the quality of your questions and the fact that you have managed to call two completely pointless divisions during these proceedings. Two things, very simply: longstanding policy is on the web, and work relating to the addendum has only just commenced.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence has just said—

A government senator: That's the one!

Gee, you're on the ball today, aren't you, old fellow? You're right on the mark. You picked that up straight away. The parliamentary secretary has just indicated to us that we had two wasted divisions today while we ascertained what the advice from the ex-service organisations was. Guess what? One of those divisions occurred before you gave the RSL the document you are talking about, so that was a waste, was it? Consultation was a waste—when it was done before you sent them the material, sent them the addendum? That was a waste, was it? I am glad you think that consultation is a waste! I am glad you think that the RSL and the Vietnam veterans federation and Legacy are also a waste, because that is implicit in your comment! That is what you are saying. We wasted time this morning while you ascertained two very simple things. The first one was whether the RSL and the Vietnam veterans federation had been consulted. The second one was what their response was. And we got their response 15 minutes ago, which actually postdated the other of the divisions that you are talking about.

Please do not come in here and effectively reflect on the bona fides of those ex-service organisations. If you cannot get your act together, if you rely on the Australian Greens, your partners in crime, to carry you, you will come unstuck every single time. Every single time, they will bring you unstuck, because what they say and what they do are two entirely different matters.

Parliamentary Secretary, I am looking forward to our discussing this again later this afternoon, and I am looking forward to your providing me with the information this chamber should have been given at 10 o'clock this morning—that is, what was the level of consultation, who was it with and what was the outcome of those deliberations? I said to you at 10 past 10 this morning and I gave you an undertaking at least two hours ago that, if you satisfy this chamber that you have had the consultations and you can satisfy the chamber—if you are telling this chamber—that the people whom you are asking to sign up to this and to whom you had not given the benefit of the document are supportive, we will support this measure. Do not talk about wasting divisions. Do not talk about abuse of due process. Do not rely on the Australian Greens to do your job for you. Get out and consult. Do what you should be doing. Deal with the RSL and Legacy and the Vietnam veterans federation in the manner in which they would expect to be dealt with; they deserve absolutely no less. If the President is here, I will sit down. I presume we are now holding this matter over, Mr Temporary Chairman.

Progress reported.