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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8100 revised together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 14 (before line 3), before item 46, insert:

45A Section 140

Omit:

(b) of managing the provision of compensation and rehabilitation provided as a result of the making of claims of that kind.

substitute:

(b) of managing the provision of compensation and rehabilitation provided as a result of the making of claims of that kind; and

(c) of minimising the duration and severity of injuries to employees by arranging quickly for rehabilitation.

(2) Schedule 1, items 47 and 48, page 14 (lines 6 to 9), omit the items, substitute:

47 Paragraphs 142(1)(c) and (d)

Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:

(c) minimising the duration and severity of injuries to employees by arranging quickly for the rehabilitation of those employees under this Act.

These amendments would minimise the duration and severity of injuries to veterans by arranging quickly for rehabilitation. This provision exists in the current Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, known as the SRCA, but was omitted in this bill, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation (Defence Force) Bill 2017, known as the DRCA. There has been much confusion about the provision for quickly arranging rehabilitation, as the government believed this was simply a function of Comcare and not of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, the MRCC. It therefore mistakenly concluded that the provision never applied to veterans. But the current SRCA requires the MRCC, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, to function as if:

(d) doing anything the doing of which:

…   …   …

(ii) would be required of Comcare if Comcare had responsibility for the performance of that function.

That is found in the SRCA, section 142, subsection (1)(d)(ii). Thus, since 1998, having rehabilitation arranged quickly has been a benefit a veteran is able to receive under today's SRCA, as the MRCC has to function as if it were Comcare. DRCA omits arranging quickly for rehabilitation. Nowhere is this language found in the bill.

The Labor Party wrongly believes the quick rehabilitation provision has not been used since 2004, when the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 came into effect on 1 July 2004. That belief does not take into account injuries and diseases that are traced back to Defence Force service during the period of coverage of SRCA and prior to the enactment of MRCA. An example would be where symptoms of a disease or injury manifest at a much later date. In those instances, when a veteran's claim is made years later under SRCA—or DRCA, if passed—and they require rehabilitation, their rehab should be arranged quickly. The government, from day one of the introduction of DRCA, has stated repeatedly that this is just a replication of SRCA into DRCA. That is rubbish! That is not the case. My amendment keeps the government honest in arranging for quick rehabilitation within DRCA. Just like the Henry VIII clause, apparently, it's a safety net—how about that!

Recently, the government conceded that, on average, veterans have had an increase in waiting times for determinations in certain SRCA claims from 112 days to 148 days. With such a significant increase in determination times, it would be prudent for the Senate to keep in a provision for quickly arranging rehabilitation. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017 doesn't include provisions to arrange quick rehabilitation for veterans, so I'd like to know: what guarantees can the government give that veterans rehabilitation will be arranged quickly?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the amendments that have been moved by Senator Lambie.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, a point of order?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie has asked a question to which I expect she's expecting a reply and not the government's response to the amendment.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think there's a point of order there.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to say that this is because the government's position is that the bill we are dealing with here at the moment, the DRCA, is an exact copy, effectively, of the SRCA and the same conditions and precedents that applied to the SRCA in terms of the treatment of veterans will continue under the DRCA.

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

If quick rehabilitation not only benefits the veteran but also has social and economic benefits for society as a whole, why won't the government codify in legislation the arrangement of quick rehabilitation? Surely, since we're all arguing about it, it would be better to be safe than sorry and make sure my amendment goes through, since you have such grave concern for our veterans.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am unsure in terms of what point you are making there, Senator Lambie, and in terms of how I can answer the question that you have just put.

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

I am simply asking because you don't sound very sure about the legislation—you've obviously got no clue about it. I would suggest you take my amendment and use it.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is certainly in no doubt as to your competency and knowledge in this area but, as I started to state before, the government does not accept that your amendments will improve the operation of the act.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie has moved the two amendments on sheet 8100. The first relates to schedule 1 and aims to insert item 45A section 140, and the second amendment relates again to schedule 1, but involves a substitution with item 47 paragraphs 142(1 )(c) and (d). The opposition regrettably will not be supporting the amendments, as we believe at this point in time, with our knowledge of the legislation, that they are unnecessary and in fact could lessen the protections for veterans in the DRCA. Amanda Rishworth in the lower house has been extensively involved in all of the discussions in this area. She is the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and has been actively and conscientiously working with the government to get this legislation right. She is a very dedicated member of parliament and has spent a lot of time and effort on this piece of legislation.

The DRCA is designed to separate Defence Force members from other Commonwealth employees, who are covered by the SRCA. The principles which these amendments seek to insert currently sit within section 69 of the SRCA and have not applied to Defence Force members since 2004. Rather than being required to only minimise the duration and severity of injuries to employees by arranging quickly for rehabilitation, Defence Force members have been covered under an expanded aim of rehabilitation which states that the intention is to 'maximise the potential to restore a person who has an impairment, or an incapacity for service or work, as a result of a service injury or disease to at least the same physical and psychological state, and at least the same social, vocational and educational status, as he or she had before the injury or disease'. This definition, combined with section 142, which calls for claims to be determined accurately and quickly, means that the principles of determining claims quickly and restoring individuals to the same social, vocational and educational status, as applied to Defence Force members in the SRCA, is upheld in the DRCA.

We have been informed that this amendment would result in a conflict of definition between the two principles of rehabilitation—one that offers a broader range of support and one that hasn't been used since 2004. The provisions in the DRCA that have been applied in the SRCA since 2004 provide a stronger commitment to Defence Force members than the inclusion of part C of the amendment. Labor believes that this amendment could lessen the protections for veterans in the DRCA. While we will not be supporting the amendment, we do understand the confusion, given that the government response to the Senate inquiry failed to clearly articulate that the rehabilitation principles in section 69 have not been utilised for the Defence Force members since 2004.

Labor pursued these concerns extensively with the government and the department—and I have some questions I'd like to ask the acting minister in a moment—and, to be perfectly honest, found it hard to get a clear explanation. I hope in the answers to the questions I'm going to ask shortly we get some clarity about those issues. It has taken a considerable amount of research into and examination of this legislation to understand the implications clearly on both the current operations of the SRCA for Defence Force members and the impact of this amendment. We believe that the inclusion of this clause in the DRCA would see two different aims of rehabilitation, which has the potential to cause a conflict and could result in lessening the protections for veterans. As such, Labor will not be supporting the amendment.

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

I want to go back to recommendation 6:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government make a reference to the Productivity Commission to simplify the legislative framework of compensation and rehabilitation for service members and veterans.

I want to know, firstly, why you haven't put that recommendation through and whether you have any intention of putting that through, and, secondly, if you do, why we are in here now spending time on amending legislation requirements that involve veterans in the acts. Right now you have the VEA, the SRCA, the MRCA, the DRCA and ComSuper. You are supposed to be streamlining processes. You've just added another one, and we now have five. Please, can you explain to me what pig-headedness would possibly make any changes right now without carrying out this recommendation? Why would you not let the Productivity Commission go in there and do the job which we can quite clearly see both sides of parliament have made a mess of, year in, year out, and can no longer clean up? They have lost the plot.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Lambie. I'm advised that, without the Minister for Veterans' Affairs having responsibility for all military compensation law, the various pieces of legislation can't be simplified, so passing the DRCA will assist and enable any review to be undertaken by the Productivity Commission into veterans legislation.

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

That's absolute rubbish and you know it is. That is just a bloody palm-off. I tell you now: explain to me step by step exactly how that works. This will be good.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you expand on what you mean by 'step by step', please?

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

I want to know what is stopping the Productivity Commission from going in there, doing its job and then feeding back up to us what needs to be done? You tell me why the Veterans' Affairs minister needs to say yes or no to that.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to reiterate two things. One is that it's the government's strong view that it will assist the simplification of the matters if all legislation falls within the Minister for Veterans' Affairs' remit. In relation to a response to the recommendations that have been made by the committee, the government has 90 days in which to respond, and, if I'm correct, we've only had them for a couple of weeks.

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

Just so we're all clear, this morning in Tasmania there was a veteran who had just come out of a coma. He got out of the service in 2012 and spent five years fighting the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We're very grateful that, today, he's finally come out of his coma from trying to take his own life. And you want 90 more days? You stand at a cenotaph like you give a stuff about these veterans. We're all talking about time lines here, and you're sitting in here talking some crap about how you want 90 days. Do you know what this committee had to go through—the harrowing stories that we had to hear to come out with these 24 recommendations? And you want to talk about 90 days. I simply want to know why you are bothering with changing legislation before the Productivity Commission can get in there and show what they can do to simplify the legislative framework. The minister does not need to give permission for that. All you need to do is clear that recommendation through.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should note that the inquiry took over 12 months, and the government is well aware of the considerable work that went into the inquiry. We believe that the inquiry deserves a considered response, and we will be giving the recommendations and the report of the inquiry a considered response.

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

We can go into the time because this is what's taking out veterans, yet you still want your 90 days. But I would like you to answer the question. We simply want the Productivity Commission to go inside the Department of Veterans' Affairs, put all of the acts together and make them into one. That is what we are asking. Why does the minister need to approve or not approve that? It's a pretty simple step. I'm simply asking you: why are we making these changes that simply do not need to be made until all of these recommendations have been dealt with, especially the Productivity Commission one? Let them go in there and do their job. It's like you're shafting them and saying, 'They're not going to get the job done, so we're going to lambaste you with legislation anyway.' That does not need the minister's approval. That recommendation needs approval, and there's no reason why you couldn't have done that two weeks ago. So why does the minister need to give his approval for this? Why do we need to put through this amendment? Why do we need to put this through when, quite clearly, putting the Productivity Commission into action to streamline those acts does not need approval from the minister?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Without the Minister for Veterans' Affairs having responsibility for all military compensation law, the various pieces of legislation can't be simplified. Passing the DRCA will assist and enable any review undertaken by the Productivity Commission into veterans legislation.

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

Why can't the minister do that? That's the question I'm asking. Explain to me and the veterans out there, right now, why the minister can't do that.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I answered that question with my previous answer.

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

So you're simply telling me that the Productivity Commission cannot go inside there and simplify the legislative framework without the minister saying so and without putting the DRCA through? Do you need the DRCA to be able to give the minister permission—which he can do; let's be honest here—to go in there and get the Productivity Commission to bring all those acts together?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said before, without the Minister for Veterans' Affairs having responsibility for all military compensation law, the various pieces of legislation can't be simplified. Passing the DRCA will assist and enable any review undertaken by the Productivity Commission into veterans legislation.

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

Okay. It seems you're not going to. I imagine that's going to mean a blowback for you boys tomorrow. In recommendation 13 the committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office commence a proposed performance audit of the efficiency of veteran service delivery by the Department of Veterans' Affairs as soon as possible. Are you going to tell me the DRCA's stopping the National Audit Office from going in there to do that too? Is that what you're telling me? Without the DRCA, can the National Audit Office not go in and do that either?

Progress reported.