Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022 mirrors one that was brought in by the coalition in March this year that, had it passed, would already be in effect. It was due to commence on 1 July. However, unfortunately, it wasn't dealt with and lapsed with the last parliament. I commend the government for bringing forward this bill, which responds to recommendations from both the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee inquiry into veteran suicide and the Productivity Commission's report, A better way to support veterans.

We support this bill because it is reasonable and practical. It harmonises veterans' entitlements across three veteran related acts. It extends the eligibility for support packages to family members of working-age veterans and removes the requirement for the veterans to have undertaken war-like service. We know that we need to support our veterans, because the statistics show us, and because of the harrowing personal evidence that has been presented to the royal commission into veterans' suicide. We know we haven't got the best record when it comes to supporting our veterans and we know we need to do better.

I don't want to put people off a career in the defence forces. Indeed, I spent 15 years in the Australian Army Reserve and I really loved every minute of it. Many of our Defence Force personnel have good experiences, make a successful transition to civilian life and have a long and flourishing second career. Unfortunately for some, they need support, and their families need support. This bill ensures that support can be provided and wrapped around the families when they need it. Importantly, this bill allows programs to be tailored to unique family circumstances. We know that everyone's experience is different and every family is different. What they need and when they need it varies greatly between circumstances.

Families are absolutely integral to supporting our veterans. We've heard through the royal commission that often it's the families who are left picking up the pieces when our veterans feel isolated, alone and broken. I thank our veterans' families, who do so much to support their family members—these people who have given service to our nation. This bill is designed to ensure that those families have the support they need so they can support their veterans.

Support services can vary, from psychological services, to in-home services, to gardening, and this is why this is a very important and integral bill. Many of our veterans live in regional Australia, and we need to do more to support our veteran community. That's why, when we were on the other side of the chamber, our government had committed $5 million to support veteran wellbeing centres in areas of high veteran numbers around Australia, like in areas of Page and Cowper. In fact, Dr David Gillespie made this point in the other place when he spoke in support of this bill but pointed out that the government is yet to commit to adopting that $5 million grant for veteran wellbeing centres.

As I said, these centres were going to be strategically located. They were to be established in partnership with ex-service organisations, like Hunter Anzac Memorial Ltd and like the Mid North Coast Veteran Wellbeing Network. These organisations do so much to support our veterans. They are volunteer organisations, but they came together with a realistic proposal for wellbeing centres, which we were going to fund and which we announced prior to the election. But we have not heard from the government what their plans are for that funding and those wellbeing centres. We know that our veteran network is crying out for this sort of support.

These wellbeing centres were part of our government's national approach to delivering integrated support services to veterans and their families by working with these local organisations, with our veterans community and with our defence community. I call on the new government to commit to these centres but also to commit to them where they're needed, which is where the veterans live, and not to move them into areas of political convenience. The sacrifice our veterans and their families have made for the defence and security of our country is incredible, and I thank all veterans and, indeed, current serving personnel. We need to make sure we look after those who've looked after us. So I commend this bill to the chamber.

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

I, too, rise to address the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022. This bill, as has been stated, was originally brought in by the former government, but in large part it is in response, by both the current government and the former government, to an inquiry that was undertaken by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, which issued a report in 2017 called The constant battle: suicide by veterans. That report made 24 recommendations after a fairly extensive period of engaging with veterans and, particularly, families around the nation and hearing about the various aspects of interaction with the military, particularly post military life, and some of the frustrations with the different legislation, the bureaucracy and the lack of resources, which had a significant impact on the mental health of veterans. I'd like to talk a little about the background to some of these measures, because it highlights the role that individuals have played in bringing about change and highlights that our parliamentary democracy does work.

First off, the chair of that committee was the late Senator Alex Gallacher. Senator Gallacher did a power of work in this area, and it's a highlight of how the different political parties in this place, including the crossbench, can work very constructively on issues that are of national significance. That's not the impression the Australian public often have, but the reality is that, in some of these areas, this work is very constructive. So I thank Alex for his leadership of that committee.

I want to touch very briefly on some of the statements in the chair's foreword to this report:

For modern veterans, it is likely that suicide and self-harm will cause more deaths and injuries for their contemporaries than overseas operational service.

That's a pretty stark observation on the situation facing some people. The foreword goes on to say:

However, it is also important to recognise that the majority of ADF members will leave their service enriched by the experience and will go on to be successful in their civilian endeavours. The members of ADF receive some of the best training in the world and leave service with valuable skills and experience that can be transferred to benefit the Australian society in a broad field of endeavours. Veterans are an essential part of the fabric of our society. The inquiry has highlighted the number of persons with military experience contributing in politics, business, health services, public service, charities and civil society.

Not all the examples provided to the committee have been negative ones. There have been many instances of veterans pulled back from the brink by partners, friends, advocates and health professionals. DVA clients have expressed their gratitude with the assistance they have received from DVA and other agencies.

I think it's important to highlight that, because often when we talk on these issues people will get the sense that to be part of the military and all it does for Australia is overwhelmingly negative, whereas that is not necessarily the case. I certainly speak from experience, having had over 20 years in the regular Army and another period in the active reserve. I believe that it has provided a fantastic foundation for many of the things that I have subsequently undertaken in this place and beyond.

For those in the veteran space, the last part of the foreword I would like to quote, which goes to the two pieces of legislation we're considering today, is a paragraph that says:

A unique aspect of this inquiry has been examining the framework of military compensation arrangements and their administration through the lens of the issue of suicide by veterans. This focus has highlighted the burden of legislative complexity and administrative hurdles on veterans who are often seeking support at a vulnerable period of their lives.

I would add to that that often those hurdles exist for the families of veterans as well as veterans themselves, which brings me to this bill.

As has been outlined by my colleagues, this bill seeks to implement some of the recommendations of that Senate report, particularly on harmonisation of those three pieces of legislation, but also remove some of the hurdles that have faced people. 'Warlike service' is an example. For many years, you had to have actually served in a war or warlike service, whereas we see some veterans and their families who are facing significant issues because of accidents and issues that occur during training and in peacetime. In South Australia just recently a veteran, Mr Darren Harvey, led an effort to get recognition for veterans who were training at Singleton more than 30 years ago. He, along with his fellow recruits, was on a range at Singleton. A recruit kicked a grenade which was unexploded, and it exploded and resulted in Mr Harvey being in hospital for an extended period of time. He still has physical issues from that. Thankfully, the Army has, after 30 years, provided recognition to those recruits for their service. But this indicates that there are people who haven't necessarily conducted warlike service but have received injuries and need the support of the government.

Specifically, this bill responds to recommendation 19 of the report, which is on the ways to support families. It includes, amongst other things, expanding the eligibility of those who can receive support. Importantly, the bill also ensures that payments to veterans and their families are exempt from income tax and are not included as income for the purposes of social security determinations. That has been a bugbear for veterans for many years.

Going to the point that I made at the start, I'd like to highlight that the parliamentary process works, in that representative democracy works. I'd like to highlight here, particularly, the role of Ms Ellen Gillespie, a lady from South Australia who brought to our attention the effect of the rules and guidelines which are currently in place. You could be the spouse of a veteran and support that veteran for decades—giving up your career, travelling, moving, nursing, supporting through post-traumatic stress and a whole range of issues. If that relationship broke down, the veteran would move on and continue having the support of the community, but, if the spouse were now, perhaps, at the end of their working age, the spouse would be left with little or no superannuation and no entitlement to benefits, after supporting a veteran for all those years. This situation would be particularly exacerbated if there was domestic violence involved in the break-up of that relationship.

Ellen's advocacy and her willingness to talk about her story, have brought about changes that have already been put in place. I thank, in particular, the Deputy Commissioner of DVA, Ms Janice Silby, in South Australia, who engaged and listened and brought Ms Gillespie into various opportunities to explain, so that the bureaucracy could understand the situation for what is a relatively small group but a group that we, all the same, should be looking after. I'm pleased to see that this bill recognises that eligibility should be expanded to family members of working-age veterans who are at risk of, or in, crisis, along with working-age widowed partners of deceased veterans and former partners, under certain circumstances. I wish to thank Ellen for her courage in speaking up. I thank her for her care of her former partner over all those years. I also want to highlight that our parliamentary democracy works. Our representative democracy works, and this is a good example of it, so I am pleased to lend my support to this bill today.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022, but with some reservations and concerns.

This bill amends the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988. The purpose of the bill is to extend eligibility to veterans and their family members who are covered by each of those three acts. It does it for those veterans and family members who are at risk of, or in, crisis. Critically—and this is one of the key reasons the Greens support the bill—it extends the criteria for access to veterans whether or not the veteran is participating in a rehabilitation program or has rendered warlike service.

The bill is a further response to recommendation 19 of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report, The constant battle: suicide by veterans. Suicide by veterans is a deeply, deeply tragic story in Australia. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last few decades, more veterans have lost their lives through suicide than in armed conflict. When you look at the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, you will see that in many ways the system that's meant to be supporting veterans is, indeed, tearing them down. It is denying them support and putting them through torturous processes and, in far too many cases, is aggravating the harm that they suffered while on service. This bill is an attempt, at least, to respond to that in part.

Why do we have recommendation 19? And why do we have this bill? It's useful to go back to the Senate committee report to see why recommendation 19 was put in. That report said:

… a consistent theme from the evidence received was that there was a lack of support for the partners those veterans who have mental health conditions or have acquired severe disabilities arising from their service. The partners of veterans often act as the keystone of support for veterans, some as full-time or part-time carers. The situation of veterans often markedly declines when these relationships fail. In the view of the committee, this is a critical area for DVA to investigate and develop further measures of support.

And that's why we have recommendation 19, which reads:

The committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs review the support for partners of veterans to identify further avenues for assistance. This review should include services such as information and advice, counselling, peer support and options for family respite care to support partners of veterans.

A similar bill was introduced by the coalition in the last parliament—and I won't review the history; I know my colleague Senator Steele-John was critical of the delay, and for good reasons—but it was not passed before the 2022 election.

The main changes proposed through the Family Support Package are as follows: removing the eligibility requirement for veterans to have had warlike service—we give that a tick; removing the requirement for eligible veterans to be participating in a rehabilitation program—we also give that a tick; allowing veterans and families of veterans with service prior to July 2004 to access the program; and increasing the amount of assistance available and removing the limits for specific services so that families have flexibility to access the assistance they need.

The cost of this package over four years is very modest, particularly in the scale of the defence budget. One of the reasons it's modest is the limitations the government is proposing for it. A key eligibility criterion is that individuals or family members need to be in crisis or at risk of a crisis. That's not defined in the bill, and perhaps that's a good thing. It could be set out with more granularity in the documents that follow the passage of this bill. The bill also places a new age cap of 65 years to access the program. That is a red flag for us, and it's a red flag for many veterans. The current program provides access to veterans aged up to the age of disability eligibility age, which is currently 66½ years. The reason that's a red flag for us and a very real concern is that, if you go back to that same report—the Senate report, which drafted recommendation 19—the paragraph that follows that very recommendation reads:

The committee was also concerned to receive evidence regarding the challenges which may face veterans moving from DVA support into aged care. It was apparent that loss of access to services such as Veterans' Home Care and the Rehabilitation Appliances Program could have serious implications for elderly veterans transitioning to aged care. Although this was not a focus during the inquiry, the committee notes the importance of this issue given the large number of elderly veterans.

My colleague Senator Steele-John, in reviewing the coalition's bill in the last parliament—and this very closely matches the coalition's bill—had it costed what it would be to remove that age cap and retain two, three or four years of additional support and benefits to veterans. Whilst the support would require a real financial contribution from the government, the contribution would be, if you put it in the context of the defence budget, entirely appropriate to support veterans as they make that transition. Removing the age cap and providing five years of family support under the coalition's bill—and I say again that this closely matches that—would cost $115 million in the first year. Doing it in the third year would cost some $300 million. I'm not pretending, and the Greens aren't pretending, that that isn't a significant cost to budget. But what cost do we put on supporting veterans? Well, we what cost the government has put on supporting veterans in this bill, a little bit under $40 million. But we know from the findings of the Senate report that it's as veterans transition into aged care and they age out of the system that they're losing these supports and they are especially vulnerable.

My office had a series of repeated discussions with the minister. Those discussions with the minister were not able to move the government on this. But we urge the minister—we did it in those discussions; we do it again today in this chamber—to lift the eligibility cap, because that hard and fast ageing out of support isn't the support that veterans need. It's not the support that families need.

The Greens will be supporting this bill because it takes us forward. It provides critical additional benefits consistent with that recommendation from the Senate committee, but there is so much more work to be done here, and we cannot and we will not forget those veterans who are heading into aged care and moving to retirement age.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the contributions of senators on the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022. I thank the senators who have contributed to this debate. Can I start by acknowledging the contribution of Senator Fawcett, who appropriately and generously recognised the contribution of both the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee and its chair at the time, the late senator Alex Gallacher. I was very pleased to hear Senator Fawcett provide that acknowledgement of our friend and colleague Alex, and I wish to associate myself with his remarks in that regard. It seems appropriate to also acknowledge that Senator Fawcett served on that same committee during that period. Having served with him on other committees—I served with him for an extended period of time on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—I know that Senator Fawcett brings, routinely, that same good-faith engagement to his committee work. I'm sure it's very pleasing to him to see the work that he undertook in that period on that committee brought forward in legislation today.

Senator Shoebridge, thank you also for your contribution. I acknowledge the engagement that you have had with the government and with the minister. I know that you are concerned about the cap. I might provide this information for the benefit of the chamber. It is true that the current program is targeted at working-age families under 65 who face challenges following the death of their veteran or due to that veteran's incapacity for work. It's not intended to support older families, for whom a range of other supports are available. The new program takes into account the typical retirement age for veterans based on when they served. However, we do intend to continue working with the veterans community and consulting with the veterans community about the forms of support that are required. I would also observe that the package intends to complement other forms of support available to veterans and their dependants. It's not designed to support families in the long term. It is for families facing immediate challenges arising from the incapacity of the veteran.

Perhaps in summing up I can simply say this. This parliament has been confronted on many occasions now by harrowing stories of hardship experienced by people serving in the Defence Force and by veterans. Our government is determined to work with the veteran community and with serving defence personnel to ensure that we provide the best possible support to people who make an enormous contribution to our nation. We acknowledge, too, that for many people the experience is very positive, but, for those for whom it is not, we need to provide support. The Australian community has a clear expectation that veterans and their families will be well looked after. The bill before us is just one step in a series of measures we are taking to improve the wellbeing of veterans. I commend it to the Senate and again thank senators for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.