Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to begin the debate today on my private member's bill that I introduced to parliament last year on Remembrance Day. It is called the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015. As the name implies, it gives our veterans—including peacemakers and peacekeepers as well as federal police who have served in war or war like conditions—automatic access to the best medical care Australia can offer, through the gold card system.

Unfortunately, it is my suspicion, after informal and formal talks with the Liberal and Labor parties, that neither will be supporting this legislation. This makes me feel very sad, frustrated and angry, because, if passed, this bill would force this parliament to make simple changes to our laws, which would meaningfully limit the numbers of Australia's veterans who commit suicide. I have to congratulate the Greens on supporting my legislation. We may disagree on other matters, but it is only right to congratulate and thank the Greens for supporting me on this issue.

It comes as no shock that if I were granted one wish and given a choice of having one bill passed by this parliament—while there are many that would tempt me—this would be the bill that I would choose. I would choose this bill because I believe in every fibre of my being that this bill—with its provision which automatically expands gold health card access to all veterans—will save the lives of hundreds of Australian soldiers, peacemakers, peacekeepers and Federal Police officers who have placed themselves in war or warlike conditions for this country.

If this bill does not pass this house, I am convinced that we will continue to lose hundreds of veterans to suicide—at a frightening, alarming rate. The unofficial number of veterans who committed suicide over the last decade and a half is about 241. When you reflect on the fact that the total of those Australians who died in combat overseas over the last 15 years is approximately 49 and the total number of Australian former diggers who committed suicide is 241, the enormity and weight of the tragedy sinks in and causes in me a terrible dread. These deaths are avoidable, because a bureaucratic fight with the Department of Veterans' Affairs to obtain the benefits and services of a health gold card is responsible for killing our very own veterans and carving a trail of destruction through their families and friends.

Few people understand the physical and psychological pressures that a professional soldier is placed under, let alone the psychological and physical cost of serving in war or warlike conditions. Perhaps professional athletes who are pushed to their psychological and physical breaking limits daily for years have an appreciation for the strength and endurance a soldier in our modern Army requires. The average Army grunt's body is ruined after about six to eight years of carrying packs, arms and ammunition.

There is a quote attributed to George Orwell which reads:

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Well the only change I would make to that statement to keep it from breaching sexual discrimination rules of 2016 is to say, 'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men and women stand ready to do violence on their behalf.' Acting Deputy President Ketter, put simply, and using Orwellian words, if you and I are to keep sleeping peacefully in our beds then our ADF will need to take Australian men and women, train them in the dark arts of combat and roughen them up a bit. I understand this reality because I have been through the official roughening up process, starting with basic training at Kapooka. But most Australians probably do not understand the ADF's training process, which, if not managed properly, can lead to learned helplessness and injuries just as severe and horrific as war.

The Australian Defence Force is damaging its members, discharging them, wiping their hands of them, failing to care for them, and passing them over to the Department of Veterans' Affairs where the bureaucratic nightmare and further harm and damage happens. This is not a lie. This is a fact borne by the evidence that, to date, 241 veterans have killed themselves in the space of 15 years, and that shameful fact has been officially covered up by successive governments, who refuse to acknowledge this awful truth. The fact is proved by the hundreds of homeless veterans sleeping rough every night in this country. The fact is proved by the broken veterans who end up in our jails in this country.

The Department of Veterans' Affairs is a very dangerous place for our diggers, especially those who have served overseas in war or warlike conditions. Why do those diggers have to fight for the best medical care that this country has to offer? Put aside the petty legal arguments and the misleading financial arguments the government and Labor party will offer in this debate. Doesn't Australia have a moral duty to provide the best medical care to its citizens who signed an agreement to die for their country in its defence? Why can't those diggers who have been to war for us ring up or email the Department of Veterans' Affairs and say, 'G'day, Veterans' Affairs, I'm Stan Smith. I served in a peacekeeping mission. Here's my official service number. I'll email you my discharge certificate. Now I'd like my health gold card in a week's time because I've got some serious health issues that me and my family have to deal with very quickly, because I can't afford financially, psychologically or physically to go on a waiting list or to go into battle with my own'? Why would you even contemplate making a veteran who put themselves in harm's way on multiple tours fight to obtain a gold card?

It takes a special kind of sadistic, callous and ungrateful bastard to put a veteran through a paperwork hell just so they can access proper, timely and affordable health treatment. And the really disappointing fact is that within the walls of this building there seems to be an unending supply of those kinds of people, who have made their way to positions of power and influence.

That is why we need this law passed which will put in our law the automatic right for you, our vets, to access the best medical care Australia has to offer if you have served in war or warlike conditions. You will not have to submit to the degrading assessment process where untrained and unqualified bureaucrats interpret complex medical reports, play God and decide whether your injury warrants enough points to make the grade. And then, if they do not like you, they will hire investigators—private eyes—to follow you and secretly film you, and drag out your appeals in courts and tribunals for as long as possible and at as much cost as possible to you, the veteran or discharged digger.

I speak with some authority when I describe the incompetent actions of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I fought a long legal battle, which I won—but only after huge financial, physical and psychological cost to me, my sons, my family and my mates. I should congratulate the department, because if it were not for their predatory, callous, unfair, unjust and unreasonable behaviour towards me then I would never have found the strength, the courage and good fortune to have won a seat in this place.

I will not go into the detail of my battle with DVA. I will leave that to another time, because it would distract from the bill's main purpose: to help those who have served in war or warlike conditions. I did not serve in those conditions.

However, one important consequence of passing this bill will be that veterans will spend less time in places like the Administrative Appeals Tribunal fighting appeals with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The bill may help some veterans avoid one very nasty side-effect of exercising your right to appeal a DVA decision in the AAT, which is this: because the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is a court, when information is presented to a court it then becomes public property and is available for public scrutiny. That is to be expected in a democratic system. However, what I found is that, if the tribunal chair takes a very broad, liberal view on what personal medical information should and should not be made public, veterans could find themselves—as I recently found myself—fighting a major media organisation which did not only want to see the medical information directly relevant to my medical injuries associated with my claim, but used a loophole in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal laws to go on a fishing expedition, helped by extraordinary rulings by Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Greg Melick, who is also a very senior officer, a major general, in order to access just about every private medical record I have.

I have made known, publicly, my battles with depression and mental illness during my journey with the Department of Veterans' Affairs—a battle which was largely caused by the dysfunction and corruption in that department. I have been very open about my past medical conditions, which I have managed to get on top of. But I have just had to spend $30,000 in legal fees fighting Rupert Murdoch, who exploited a loophole in our DVA appeal system so that he could sell newspapers with all my private medical records splashed across their pages. And, under the current Veterans' Affairs appeal system, it did not cost Rupert's reporter a cent to carry out that legal action—not one cent.

I have recovered, with new medical treatment, and have become more much more resilient, compared with the dark days where depression and chronic pain became unbearable. I never had any faith in or respect for Rupert Murdoch's ethics or morals, which have always floated along in the gutter of Australian political and cultural life—so that belief has remained unshaken. However, my fight to keep some privacy for my medical records has deeply shaken my faith in the Department of Veterans' Affairs appeals system. I would hate for any unsuspecting veteran who may be targeted by a media organisation or entity to have to go through the fight I had to go through to keep medical records, non-relevant to an AAT decision, private.

I also find it incredible that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal commissioners can also be part-time Australian Defence Force legal officers. How can serving senior military officers, as is Deputy President and Major General Melick, be involved in judicial decision-making about former members of the military? This is, at the very least, a very clear conflict of interest and, therefore, possible corruption, which I hope the Attorney-General will address. Given my high-profile campaign against senior officers of the Australian military who have stood by for decades and allowed paedophiles and rapists to remain in the ranks while sacking others for just receiving, not opening, emails with dirty pictures attached, any reasonable person can see there is the distinct possibility that a motive exists for a still-serving, elite, Australian Defence Force senior legal officer, Major General Melick, to be involved with a biased decision when it comes to the release of all my most private medical records to the media.

This is what my lawyer had to say, in part, about this extraordinary chain of events put in place by a Murdoch media reporter and the Australian Defence Force senior legal officer Major General Melick:

Background.

1.1 The application was made by Mr Owen, journalist with the "Australian" Newspaper pursuant to section 35 of the AAT Act that, essentially allowed for him (i.e. a non-party to access all material regarding your previous AAT case that was the subject of a written decision on the 13th of April 2006.

1.2 The application was made under section 35 of the AAT Act that essentially allowed for the journalist to obtain all the documents including the evidence that was given before the AAT including documents lodged that may or may not have been referred to in the decision.

1.3 When the Application was made by Mr Owen, the AATs' initial response on the 1st of December 2014 was:

"Please find enclosed for your information, a request by a non- party for access to Tribunal documents. The request has been referred to Deputy President (DP) Melick for his consideration and DP Melick has indicated that his preliminary view is that as there was a substantive hearing with respect to these applications, the non-party is entitled to access the following documents;

> any document received in evidence by the Tribunal

DP Melick has indicated that before he makes a decision on this request, he will seek the views of the parties involved and in particular whether the documents contain information that they believe should be protected by a confidentiality order.

1.4 By letter dated 10th December 2014 (Attached) we outlined to the AAT why the proposed release of all of the above documents was clearly a response to an ambit claim i.e. for your whole file including all documents and exhibits as it would allow someone who was not a party to your case to receive documents that were not within the public domain, documents covered by legal professional privilege, full medical reports and medical records, evidence that had been disallowed by the tribunal and the substantial breach of your privacy.

1.6 We outlined our concerns to the AAT by letter dated 5th of February 2015 (Attached) in respect to not releasing documents on grounds of personal information and that we objected to the release of all information as it was obviously was medical in confidence, legal professional privilege and an unreasonable disclosure of personal information and so forth.

1.8 Additionally we outlined in writing that using the AAT’s own Privacy Policy that it would not disclose or use personal information unless you had consented, it was reasonable to expect and of the AAT to not use or disclose the information for that other purpose i.e. to give it to a journalist which was not relevant or any of the other grounds contained within the AAT's privacy policy.

3. AAT Outcome

3.1 The attempt by a non-party i.e. a journalist to go on a fishing expedition for the documents exposed a substantial anomaly that exists between your right as an individual to have information that would otherwise have not been disclosed pursuant to the Freedom of information act and the Privacy act that was not exempt from those privacy position provisions because of the operation of the AAT Act as the AAT is exempt by the FOI act.

3.2 The AAT however has its own Privacy Policy that purports to protect personal information; however it has been at a substantial experience to you that, in all the circumstances was unreasonable for you to incur.

3.3 We confirm that, counsel's fees totalled $16,912.50 and our fees including our attendance at the first day's hearing in Hobart and 12 hours of preparation and attendance with counsel totalled $12,462.00.

3.4 You were therefore liable to pay approximately $30,000 for an AAT application by journalist that, if made pursuant to the FOI act would not have required you to incur any expenses as, in all probability all of the information that the AAT agreed should not be released, would not have been available in any event through FOI.

You can image what fun Mr Murdoch would have at my expense if my legal team had not been able to redact a large portion of my personal medical records after Major General Melick authorised their release. I suppose the balance of power of the Australian Senate is a matter of high stakes and all is fair in love and war to some people. I would like to know what political affiliations and connections Major General Melick has. They could be relevant in this matter given his extraordinary ruling which would have led to the public release of all my private medical records. All of them!

Successful passage of the Veterans’ Entitlement Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015 will mean that significantly fewer veterans will have to submit themselves to a dysfunctional, dishonest and corrupt Veterans' Affairs appeals process, which clearly contributes to the harm the veterans have already suffered. It lessens the chance that vets, or injured former diggers, will have to spend thousands of dollars fighting to keep their personal medical records private should a reporter or anyone else decide to dig dirt with the help of a compliant AAT commissioner.

If we send them and bend them, whatever the cost, we should mend them. We will always honour the dead, but I can tell you now, we will always fight like hell for the living. There are military members over there in the chamber and you know who you are, and if you are not on my side fighting for this bill, then all that crap that you said in your first speeches means absolutely nothing to those who have served. It means absolutely nothing! And they will not forget!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all current and past service personnel for their service to our nation, and there is absolutely no question that all of us in this place and in the nation owe them a huge debt of gratitude. I too rise today to speak on this bill and I do remind the Senate of my objections to yet another well-intentioned bill on service related issues, but again it is very poorly conceived and uncosted. Like Senator Lambie's bill to increase defence pay, while it had a very catchy title, the devil is always in the detail, and in the case of the last bill the detail was that it actually set back all pay and conditions of defence service personnel.

Australians are rightly proud of the service of our ADF members and I could not have been prouder of having been a member of the Australian Army. Despite the threat that Senator Lambie just made to me, personally, in this chamber, nobody is a more a passionate advocate for the veterans and for our current serving ADF members than I. Again, I commend Senator Lambie for her ongoing commitment to defence personnel, but to suggest in this place that anybody has a mortgage on compassion and a mortgage on what is right for a very complex policy area, I think, is insulting and is, quite frankly, wrong. We might have differences of policy, in terms of how to deal with these issues, and we might also have very different approaches on how to seek change and get better outcomes for our veterans, but to suggest that I or any other serving personnel in this chamber does not care, and to be subject from a threat by Senator Lambie, is absolutely wrong, and it is insulting.

Let's have a look at the details. This bill suggests that the current government and, indeed, all past governments from both sides do not care about the veteran community. As I said, that is absolutely wrong. This bill proposes automatically issuing a DVA healthcare, all-conditions gold card to current and ex members of the Australian Defence Force who have rendered service in war or warlike operations and also all members of peacekeeping forces, including Australian Federal Police members. Again, like the bill on higher pay for ADF which actually reduced pay, the devil is in the detail, or lack of detail, of this bill.

Senator Lambie's bill also includes provisions to extend gold card benefits retrospectively for treatment provided since 1 August 1947 for any injury or disease experienced by any eligible person who is alive at the commencement of this bill. Further, the bill proposes to issue a gold card solely on the basis of current or ex members having the necessary service, regardless of whether the recipient has a condition or injury caused by war or sustained during war or warlike operations. Again, this sounds reasonable. But, again, it is a very populist approach. For reasons I will go through, it is counterproductive. It is uncosted. It could actually backfire horribly.

It is clear that this is a well-intentioned policy. It is certainly a very populist one. But, to be frank, I am certain Senator Lambie has not thought for a second how much it would cost, especially on a day like today—

Senator Lambie interjecting—

Senator Lambie, you were heard in silence.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Lambie! Senator Reynolds, please address your remarks to the chair.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie was heard in silence when giving her speech. She also directly threatened me. She is now also being very unparliamentary. I would ask her to withdraw her last comment.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not hear the comments because there was so much noise in the chamber. But I will remind all senators that they need to be respectful to one another in the chamber.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask that I be extended the same courtesy that I and other colleagues extended to Senator Lambie and be heard in silence.

Further, this bill proposes to issue a gold card solely on the basis of a current or ex member having necessary service. As I said, this is a well-intentioned policy, but it is completely uncosted. We have no idea how much it would cost, which is particularly ironic because at this exact moment the Minister for Defence is releasing the Defence white paper and is committing almost $30 billion of new spending towards defence. That will include going towards veterans and current serving personnel.

My greatest concern with this bill is that by making this very important resource for our most vulnerable veterans and ADF personnel as widely available as Senator Lambie wants it would not be targeted and would be spread too thin. It is completely uncosted. The result would be that those who need this assistance most would end up losing out. There is no question about that.

As part of this government's defence policy, we are fiercely committed to ensuring the health and wellbeing of Australia's current and former service men and women and to providing support for their families and dependents. The government's 2015-16 budget is delivering $12 billion for veterans' affairs—$6.5 billion for pensions and compensation and $5.5 billion for health care. In 2014-15 the Department of Veterans' Affairs supported more than 316,000 clients through treatment cards—gold cards and white cards in particular—and some compensation for incapacity or permanent impairment and whole-of-person rehabilitation.

Senator Lambie has stated that:

Australia has a moral as well as a legal duty to give our veterans access to the best medical care our country can offer.

Senator Lambie, let me emphasise this: the government absolutely supports this and is delivering it. This is why it has programs in place that work with healthcare service providers to ensure they understand the unique and particular needs of current and former ADF members.

The government's mental and social health action plan for 2015 and 2016 outlines a comprehensive e-learning program to improve the capabilities of healthcare providers to support veterans' mental health. DVA has also worked with peak provider organisations to make veteran-specific compulsory development point training available, further enhancing providers' understanding of veterans' requirements.

DVA invests considerable effort to make it easier for health providers to do business with government. This includes providing free, fast and simple e-billing arrangements and reducing the red tape associated with providing treatment. DVA also has a streamlined process to consider approving new and emerging treatment options where these can provide a benefit to patients, ensuring access to contemporary care in a timely manner.

I would note that this bill is of such great interest to Senator Lambie that she has left the chamber. She clearly does not want to hear all of the things the government is actually doing. I am sure if she were here she would be interested to know that DVA has recently also established a comprehensive and streamlined consultative forum with providers to ensure their voices are heard and responded to. This forum is in addition to consultation being undertaken in respect of dental and allied health services.

DVA's major focus is on early intervention as the critical first step in identifying and meeting the mental health needs of veterans. Veterans and their families can access mental health support. Again, it is a shame that Senator Lambie is not here to hear about the mental health support aspects of what DVA is providing. Nonetheless, I will recount them for colleagues in this place. First of all, veterans can talk to their GP, who may provide treatment or refer them to a psychologist, psychiatrist or social worker. They can access DVA's mental health web portal, At Ease, which gives access to videos, self-help tools and mobile apps on mental health and wellbeing. As well, they have the option to call on the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service at any time to access free and confidential Australia-wide counselling and support.

If Senator Lambie were here for this debate she may have also been interested to hear that there are three main ways clients may access medical care through current DVA arrangements. Clients with qualifying service who are aged 70 years and older automatically receive a gold card that covers treatment costs for any condition. I will say that again because I think that is something that Senator Lambie and those who support this bill clearly do not understand. Clients with qualifying service who are aged 70 and older automatically receive a gold card which covers treatments for any condition. Eligible clients seeking treatment for cancer, TB and certain mental health conditions—whatever the cause—may access treatment by taking the non-liability pathway. Clients seeking treatment and compensation for medical conditions, including mental health conditions, related to service in the ADF may take the liability pathway and lodge a claim.

I understand and acknowledge that validation of service and sacrifice is essential to the mental health and wellbeing of all veterans—of course it is—and that includes contemporary veterans of more recent operations. Nobody in this place—and certainly not me—is saying that DVA is perfect and that they get it right for all 316,000 clients all of the time. Of course they are not and of course they do not. But DVA does know that it needs to learn from the past, use new knowledge about mental health and continue to adapt its systems to new generations of veterans and their families.

Like Senator Lambie and many other Australians, I believe that we owe veterans and their families a debt of gratitude for their service and their sacrifice. This means we must provide them with easy access to the treatment they need and to all the compensation and benefits to which they are entitled, along with vocational rehabilitation options and opportunities to enhance their wellbeing. To this end, my focus is on providing the support veterans need through improvements like ensuring they have access to transition processes for personnel leaving military service and that they access those provisions, vocational rehabilitation options to assist those who are able to return to the workforce, the ongoing availability of mental health resources and treatments, and also the streamlining of DVA's claims processes.

In the debate today on this very ill-conceived, unfunded and highly emotive bill, let us have a look at what the gold card already provides. A gold card provides lifetime healthcare treatment at DVA's expense for health conditions experienced by the cardholder, regardless of any link between the condition and service. It is a shame Senator Lambie is not in the chamber for debate on her own bill, because I think she would probably be surprised to know that a gold card provides lifetime healthcare treatment at DVA's expense for all health conditions experienced by the cardholder, regardless of any link between the condition and the service. You would not know that from listening to Senator Lambie's speech and reading her ill-conceived bill.

What else does a gold card already provide? The gold card provides access to a broad range of treatment and services, including to private and public hospitals, theatre fees, intensive care, GP services, referred specialist services, allied health services, dental services, and optical and ambulance cover. Cardholders are also covered for a wide range of rehabilitation devices and appliances, pharmaceutical needs and travel for treatment. It is very comprehensive support, as it should be, and it went unacknowledged by Senator Lambie in her speech.

Who is eligible for the gold card? All veterans with qualifying service, including those who have served in operations in Afghanistan and in certain other operations in the Middle East, will automatically get a gold card when they turn 70 years of age. Under the VEA, a gold card is also provided to any veteran who is in receipt of a disability pension paid at or above 100 per cent of the general rate or in receipt of a disability pension at 50 per cent or above the general rate and any amount of service pension. But that is not all. A gold card is also provided under the MRCA to former ADF personnel, cadets and reservists with service since 1 July 2004.

And guess what? It is actually extended more widely than that. The gold card is also extended to those who have permanent service related injuries or diseases assessed at or above 60 impairment points. And, yes, there is even wider coverage. It is also extended to those who have permanent service related injuries or diseases assessed at or above 30 impairment points and who are also receiving any amount of service pension, to the category of veterans who are assessed as eligible for the special rate disability pension safety net payment, even if they have chosen not to receive that pension, and, again, to those who are at least 70 years old and who have qualifying service.

What do the veterans community and other people who know a lot about this say on the expansion of the gold card eligibility? The Clarke review observed that the notion that only some people may receive a gold card has been:

... widely accepted by successive governments and the community, that those veterans who suffered the rigours of service that exposed them to harm from the enemy in war or warlike operations have been affected by that service in ways not tangible, and thus should be provided with assistance where they cannot work due to age or disability ...

These views continue to be widely supported by the veteran community. Again, I am really sad to see that Senator Lambie is not here for the debate on her own bill, because I think she would be very interested to know what the veteran community are saying about her bill.

As I said, these views are widely supported by the veteran community. As recently as September and October last year, ex-service organisations and other members of the veteran community expressed their concern to Senator Lambie about her suggestion that a gold card be provided to all discharging veterans. On 25 March last year, the Senate agreed to establish an inquiry into the mental health of ADF personnel who have returned from combat, peacekeeping or other deployments. I understand that that inquiry is due to release its report this month. The inquiry has received 79 submissions, and a number of public hearings have been held in Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra. The public hearings were attended by a diverse range of representatives from the veterans community, including the RSL, the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations, Australian Families of the Military Research and Support Foundation, Walking Wounded, Soldier On and Stand Tall for PTS.

What did they have to say? Senator Lambie, as you are not in the chamber, I hope you are at least watching this, because I know you should be very interested in what the veterans organisations themselves have to say about your bill. Mr Bradley Allan Skinner, the executive officer of Walking Wounded, said:

I would like to say yes—I really would ... I am a returned soldier. I saw active service in East Timor. I am never going to pretend that the service I saw in East Timor compares with the service that these diggers that I knew in 2CR underwent in Afghanistan ... But honestly, when you put your fair dinkum hat on, it does not compare. If that were the case and I could put my hand out for a gold card, my hand would be shaking, as they used to say, because I would know, deep down, that I would not deserve it.

Mr Anthony Ross Dell, founder of Stand Tall for PTS, suggests that a temporary gold card should be issued for a short time after discharge and that a permanent gold card should only ever be provided to veterans with a diagnosed condition—as is already the case.

Mrs Emma Louise MacDonald is Director of the Australian Families of the Military Research and Support Foundation. What did she say? She was very concerned that, if every discharging member were to be automatically issued with a gold card, the people who already have gold cards and who have been injured, wounded or have other disabilities would see that it devalued their service, and it would reduce the funding available to give them the support they so badly need.

What is the cost of expanding eligibility for the gold card? I note at this point that Senator Lambie is not in the chamber for the debate on her own bill. We have seen that there are no costings for this bill. As noted previously, the proposed amendments are understood to apply to service rendered during war, conflicts or peacekeeping operations. Indicative costings have been prepared for the automatic provision of a gold card to all veterans, current and ex-members of the ADF, and AFP members who have rendered operational service, including in peacekeeping operations. Senator Lambie has asserted that the increased costs could be absorbed by government and would somehow—through the fairies in the back of the garden—be 'cost neutral'. She says that there would be no cost to this. Her assertion is clearly and patently incorrect and seems to rely on some fanciful assumption that veterans will not claim compensation once they have a gold card. So, if people are not going to claim for services when they get a gold card, why on earth would it be issued in the first place?

Compensation benefits are entirely separate from the treatment available through a gold card—and DVA makes approximately $3.8 billion in such payments each year. These costs will continue. This proposal is not cost neutral. The overall net cost of providing a gold card to all veterans with operational service is estimated to be at least $1.5 billion over the first four years and $11 billion across 20 years. Where are the costings? Where is the money coming from? Senator Lambie has been completely silent on that. Senator Lambie suggests that the proposed bill will ensure that 'everyone who serves in war or war-like operations will receive vital, necessary and timely medical and psychological treatment'.

I say in conclusion that expanding eligibility for the Gold Card is not the way to achieve this goal. Non-liability health-care treatment for mental health conditions is already available free of charge, without the need to lodge a compensation claim. The government does not support Senator Lambie's proposal to expand Gold Card criteria— (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset of my contribution to this private senator's bill, the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015, I would like to acknowledge and thank current and past service personnel for their service to our nation. Australia does indeed owe them a great gratitude. I had the privilege last year of spending time with some of our service personnel in both UAE and Afghanistan through the parliamentary defence program and got to witness firsthand the incredible work they do every day in representing our country in that part of the world.

I would also like to acknowledge Senator Lambie in bringing this bill forward. Since she has been in the Senate, she has shown incredible dedication to veterans affairs issues. I know she has a deep and personal connection to those issues. She has made contributions in relation to that a number of times in this place. Despite the differences that some of us in this place may have with some of the policy positions she may bring forward, I think we need to respect her for her dedication to veterans affairs issues and for her advocacy for service men and women in this place.

The former Minister for Veterans' Affairs has stated that the government does not currently have a policy to expand access to the gold card. So, on 10 November last year, Senator Lambie gave notice that she would introduce the private senator's bill that is currently being debated. The purpose of the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015 is to amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 so that all veterans, including peacekeepers and peacemakers or former members of Australian Defence Force, who have served in war or war-like operations, and for related purposes, are provided with a Department of Veterans' Affairs gold card and its associated benefits.

At present, I understand there are three categories of DVA health cards, depending on service and medical needs: the orange card, which is pharmaceutical only; the white card, which is for specific conditions; and the gold card, which is for all clinical health needs. The gold card, the DVA health card for all conditions, entitles the holder to DVA funding for services for all clinically necessary health-care needs and all health conditions, whether they are related to war service or not. The cardholder may be a veteran or the widow/widower or dependant of a veteran. Only the person named on the card is covered.

The white card, the DVA health card for specific conditions, entitles the holder to care and treatment for accepted injuries or conditions that are war-caused or service related; malignant cancer, pulmonary tuberculosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and/or depression, whether war-caused or not; and the symptoms of unidentifiable conditions that arise within 15 years of service, other than peacetime service.

Services covered by a white card are the same as those for a gold card but must be for treatment of war caused or service related accepted conditions. The card also entitles the holder to transport related to treatment and access to the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the RPBS, for their accepted conditions.

The orange card, the DVA health card for pharmaceuticals only, enables the holder to access the range of items available under the RPBS. The orange card is for pharmaceuticals only, and cannot be used for any medical or other healthcare treatment.

Access to DVA gold cards is currently determined by the nature of service and incapacity of a veteran, their widow or widower or their dependents.

There is no greater responsibility than the protection of Australia's interests, and that comes with the responsibility to care for and support our servicemen and servicewomen and their families. This includes the responsibility to honour the sacrifice that, in many sad instances, their families have made in losing a loved one, by ensuring that their husbands, wives and children receive the support they need and deserve.

Labor has a strong record of achievement in the important policy area of veterans affairs, based on justice, respect and recognition. While those opposite often claim to be the champions of ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen and their families, in reality they do not have the single claim to be the custodians or defenders of our former servicemen and servicewomen of our veterans community.

Labor has delivered a whole series of reforms in this important space—reforms that mean investment, that mean stronger commemoration of our military history, and that mean there are practical solutions delivering real benefits for our veterans, war widows and orphans, every single day of the year. The history of Labor's commitment to supporting war widows, for example, began in 1914. Under former Labor Prime Minister Fisher the War Pensions Act was introduced in the wake of the breakout of World War I. The War Pensions Act ensured that a pension was granted upon the death of members of the Defence Force of the Commonwealth and members of the Imperial Reserve Forces resident in Australia whose death was the result of service. This was the first of many measures over the years to ensure that ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen, war widows, widowers and war orphans were provided with the support and respect they deserved.

More recently, this has included the move to the triple indexation of aged, service and widows pensions, in 2009. In September 2009 the Pensioners and Beneficiaries Living Cost Index was added to the CPI and the Male Average Weekly Earnings Index as an indexation factor for income support payments. Under this system, aged, service and widows pensions are indexed in line with the highest of these three factors. Linking pensions to three indexation factors rather than just CPI ensures that payments keep up with the cost of living. During this same period the former Labor Government introduced the Seniors Supplement, which assisted eligible gold card and Commonwealth seniors card holders with everyday costs such as water, electricity, rates and internet bills.

In the 2013-14 budget, over $12.5 billion in funding for the veteran community was assigned by the Labor government, including some $6.8 billion in pensions and income support and $5.6 billion in health services, together with $85 million for commemorative activities, which are of extraordinary and lasting importance. The Australian system of providing financial and medical assistance to veterans, war widows and war orphans is currently one of the best in the world and Labor intends to make sure it remains that way.

We all know that the face of our veterans community is changing. The recent draw down of forces in Afghanistan and over a decade of operational deployment on peacekeeping missions has greatly increased the number of young veterans. It is vitally important that government services and policies adapt to ensure we can meet the needs of an aging veterans population and the growing number of young veterans at the same time.

Through research and experience we are also gaining a greater understanding of the mental health needs of our veterans and their families, whatever their age. Labor understands the importance of getting it right when it comes to mental health. Whether that has been conducting the Vietnam Veterans Family Study or investing an additional $26.4 million in expanded mental health services and expanding eligibility for treatment, the former Labor government made the mental health of our veterans a priority. And we are very pleased to see that work on expanded access to mental health services continue under this government.

But at a time when the demographics of the veterans community is undergoing so much change, and where the necessity of getting our response to those changes right, the Abbott and Turnbull governments have seen numerous cuts to veterans entitlements, starting with those proposed by the Abbott government in its 2014 budget. One of the key concerns coming out of the 2014 budget was the proposal to introduce CPI-only indexation for aged, service, war widow and widower and disability compensation pensions. This measure would have seen the pensions of some 280,000 members of the veterans community lose as much as $80 a week over 10 years. That is incredibly shameful. Having introduced the triple indexation system in 2009, Labor understood that CPI is rarely the highest indexation factor and, alone, it is an outdated and unfair method to keep payments up with the cost of living. As a result, we stood against this measure in the parliament and prevented its passage through the Senate on no fewer than two occasions. This measure has now been dropped in a significant win for former and current service personnel thanks to the stalwart advocacy of ex-service organisations and seniors groups.

Despite the positive outcome on CPI only indexation, many of the measures contained in the 2014 Abbott budget continue to remain in place under the Turnbull government and we now face new measures contained in the 2015 budget. Changes to disability back pay which represent a loss of up to $8,400 for special rate recipients are still very much on the table. We also spoke out strongly against the cessation of the seniors supplement, assisting veterans with the cost of energy and telephone and internet and rates and water and sewerage expenses. Sadly, this measure has now been implemented as a result of a deal done between the government and the Greens at the time.

The government has closed a number of VAN offices across Victoria and New South Wales. In addition, the government has committed to reviewing the leases of VAN and VAN-like offices as their leases come close to termination. This raises significant questions regarding how many closures we could end up seeing in the future. While I agree that social media and internet resources are an important resource for reaching out to our younger veterans, for many the face to face support and advice offered by VAN officers remains an important point of contact for many veterans, no matter what their age.

The 2015 budget also saw the extension of a pause on the indexation of dental and allied health provider fees. I believe that looking after our veterans community also means supporting those who loyally provide essential services to veterans and their families. There already exists a disparity between mean fees and government rebates when it comes to providing these services, up to 25 per cent in the case of dental services. I do not want to see services to veterans suffer as a result of unbearable market pressures, and Labor will stand opposed to this measure as a result.

Finally, and most recently, the new changes to pensions will see the part pensions of more than 10,000 veterans reduced and some 2,800 cancelled.    We are committed to working cooperatively on responsible saving but we cannot support measures like this which unfairly and disproportionally impact the most vulnerable sections of our community. We hope to see a more positive outcome for the veteran community in the 2016 budget, which we know is not far away, but at this point in time I am not holding my breath.

Labor acknowledges the success that Senator Lambie has had in the very important task of highlighting veterans' issues here in the parliament, and beyond. As I said at the outset, despite the views of those opposite about policy put forward by Senator Lambie, I think we owe her gratitude and respect. She has been a tireless advocate in the area of veterans affairs issues. She made it very clear in her first speech that she would be, and she has lived up to that commitment.

It is an important fact that more than 60,000 Australians have served on operations overseas in the ADF since 1999. This new generation of veterans are already presenting the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and all of us, with new challenges. These new challenges include post-traumatic stress disorder; the transition from ADF to civilian life, equipping our veterans with the skills and support they need to be successful outside of the Australian Defence Force; and a strong system of care and benefits that are targeted and effective and deliver value to both the veteran and the taxpayer.

According to data provided by DVA, increasing access to gold cards under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to all veterans who have served in 'war or war-like operations' and their widows/widowers and dependents would cause the number of gold cards issued to rise from 16,187 to 62,285 as of 1 July 2016. This proposal would have an ongoing impact that extends beyond the forward estimates period. Labor believes in a strong system of benefits and entitlements for our veterans and their families as a sincere way of demonstrating our gratitude for the service they have provided to our country. I hope I have outlined some of the ways in which Labor when in government delivered exactly that—the way we delivered that sense of gratitude for their service through all of the budget measures that we took over the years that we were in government. We were serious about providing support in the policies we implemented in return for their dedication.    Labor has an outstanding record of accomplishment in this very important area of public policy. Labor has built on this record by opposing those unfair measures contained in the 2014-15 and 2015-16 budgets which impacted on our veterans' community.

Access to DVA gold cards is currently determined by the nature of service and incapacity of a veteran, their widow/widower or their dependents.    This is in recognition of the different levels of service given by veterans and the sacrifices they have made for our country.    The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is currently conducting an inquiry into the mental health of ADF personnel who have served, and is considering transition arrangements out of Defence, the level of health and support services available and its impact on the mental health of our veterans. I understand the committee is due to report in the coming weeks, and we will carefully consider the recommendations of the report when they are released. I look forward to that and I look forward to the ongoing work that this parliament needs to do when it comes to veterans affairs. These are incredibly important matters. I thank Senator Lambie for her ongoing passion, commitment, understanding and dedication to veterans affairs issues and for the support she provides to so many veterans in our community in Australia.

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

I rise today to speak to Senator Lambie's bill, the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Expanded Gold Card Access) Bill 2015, and to foreshadow an amendment that the Australian Greens will be moving jointly with Senator Xenophon when we get to the committee stage. I have reasonably frequently found myself on the opposite of the argument to Senator Lambie, but not on this issue. Since the first moment that she took her seat in here, the Australian Greens, more often than not, have found ourselves on the same side of the debate.

The Greens believe that we owe our service personnel a number of things. The first is to not needlessly deploy them into harm's way, and I would strongly assert that that has not been done and that we have put people needlessly in harm's way numerous times through taking on wars of choice. The second thing that we owe them to look after them on their return, so I congratulate Senator Lambie for her advocacy and for bringing this important debate to the parliament this morning.

I want to confine my remarks to the amendment that I will move jointly with Senator Xenophon when we come to the committee stage, and that is about a cohort of Australian military veterans who have remained largely forgotten. I have spoken many times in the past of our atomic veterans who served in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings of 1945, having been posted there during the occupation of Japan in the immediate postwar period. I believe they will be caught by Senator Lambie's amendment, so I do not propose to speak solely of them this morning. The particular cohort I refer to here were those veterans who were forced as a condition of their service to participate and witness the nuclear weapons bombings of Montebello Islands, Emu Field and Maralinga by our ally, the British government. They were exposed to neutron radiation and fallout and have suffered a lifetime of health conditions. I have pursued this under several different prime ministers and under governments Labor and Liberal, and the utter tragedy is that because they were bombed by an ally, not an enemy, they are not eligible for gold card health support. That is an extraordinary tragedy. They were exposed to radiation from nuclear weapons blasts—something that nobody should have to see. In wartime, it has only happened those two times, those infamous days of 6 and 9 August 1945. But those Australian and British veterans who were exposed to nuclear blasts are not eligible for the kind of gold card support that we have been debating in the Senate this morning, because their exposure was at the hands of an ally. Had they been bombed by imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, they would, as a right, be entitled to this support. They were bombed by the British government at the express invitation of the Australian government, and then we have hung them out to dry.

The amendment is a simple one. It is identical in intent to an initiative that the Australian Greens launched during the 2013 election campaign. It does nothing more than to help these surviving veterans and their families, who have been cursed with the long-term, intergenerational health and genetic effects of exposure to ionising radiation. They have had to try to prove to DVA, to health authorities and to the GPs that the extraordinary range of health conditions that they have suffered in the intervening decades was at the hands of those atomic blasts that they were forced to witness. Of course, it is like smoking cigarettes and developing lung cancer. Just as you can never pinpoint the exact cigarette that caused the cancer to take hold in your body, you cannot prove that it was exposure to the atomic blasts that caused the hideous range of health conditions that these veterans have been exposed to—nor should they have, because the epidemiological evidence is sound. It is bedded down against decades of experience in the medical community.

These veterans are owed more than we are giving them. That is why I am proud to stand here today. Senator Lambie knows that this is not a hostile amendment. This is an amendment that effectively complements and closes an intergenerational loophole that we opened up when we allowed Australian personnel to be harmed by the actions of an ally, and that is not something that anybody should be subject to. Mr Ray Whitby, a fellow Western Australian, was a nuclear veteran in the 1958 atomic weapons testing at the Montebello Islands in Western Australia. He says the following:

More than half a century ago, I was a young man eager to serve his country. As a result I have suffered a lifetime of medical issues that have impacted my enjoyment of life. All I now ask for is fair and just compensation.

Mr Geoffrey Gates, one of the 290 veterans who took their case to the Australian Human Rights Commission, says:

To not be recognised by the government as having participated in non-warlike hazardous activities is an insult to me, to my family and to all other the veterans and civilians whose lives changed forever because we simply weren't told the truth.

We owe these individuals better. The tragedy is that we took for the 2013 election a costing from the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. What they told us extraordinary. It was that the later you leave the introduction of this essential measure to support the health of this dwindling cohort of individuals, the cheaper it gets. I ask the Senate to pause and reflect on why that is. It is because these people are dying. They were exposed in the 1940s and 1950s, and there are not many of them left. I would say that the absolute least obligation that we owe them—whatever your political alignment, whatever your allegiances in this place or what it was that brought you here—is that we should offer them this assistance while some of them yet live. Is that too much to ask?

In the context of the Defence white paper announced this morning, which proposes, in aggregate, $1 trillion in military spending over forthcoming decades, the least we can do is to honour, acknowledge and help support those veterans who suffered not at the hands of the enemy but at the hands of a nuclear armed ally. I thank Senator Lambie and the Senate.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question by now put.