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

The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 has been far too long in the making given the urgency it should have received. This legislation is in response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's first recommendation in its interim report, which was handed down in August 2022. The recommendation found that the veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislative system is so complicated that it actually adversely affects the mental health of some veterans and serving ADF members and can contribute to suicidality. The words 'can contribute to suicidality' should have raised a sense of urgency, particularly on an issue that essentially has bipartisan support.

Work on simplifying and harmonising the system should have been a priority even as the royal commission completed its vital and sensitive investigations. Yet it took almost two years for the bill to first be introduced, passing the House of Representatives on 6 November last year after debate originally opened in August. Since then, it has languished on the Senate's Notice Paper. It was first put on the paper on 18 November, and it has been on a veritable roller-coaster, being pulled up and then pushed back on the Notice Paper, going up and down, which shows you the level of priority this government has put on securing the health and wellbeing of our veteran personnel. We must ask: how many more will be let down and feel abandoned before the changes of this bill finally come about, given they will not come into effect until July 2026, nearly four years after the original recommendation was made?

We currently have about 300,000 veterans in Australia. We currently have about 57,000 serving personnel. So we have a great many reasons why we need to get this legislation correct, to get it passed and to get it working. The royal commission reported that 1,677 veteran suicides had occurred between 1997 and 2021, but it is widely recognised that this figure is probably very shy of the more accurate assessment of upwards of about 3,000. The very, very sad reality is that there is more chance of a veteran dying from suicide than dying while serving our country, and that is tragic.

This legislation combines into one the three separate acts that currently exist for entitlements, compensation and rehabilitation support for veterans. The three acts are the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, commonly known as the MRCA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act, or the DRCA; and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. They will be combined into an amended military rehabilitation and compensation or the 'MRCA 2.0', as my colleague in the other place shadow minister for veterans' affairs Barnaby Joyce calls it.

Currently, the three acts are over 2,000 pages long. They contain 850 legislative instruments and provide different types of compensation, including pensions, lump sums, periodic compensation payments, healthcare cards and rehabilitation. In some cases, veterans have claims under all three acts. It is no wonder that our veterans community finds it overly complicated as they try and wade through the system. But I want to make the point that it is very important for our veterans community to understand that, in streamlining these three acts into one, no-one who is currently receiving a payment under any of those three acts will be worse off. This is an assurance given to us by the government, and it is an assurance we will hold the government to.

In some instances, allowances will increase: funeral allowances, reimbursement of funeral costs and other service related deaths. There might be higher reimbursements for travel and treatment, and for consolidation of household and attendant care, among other enhancements. This is all welcome. While this bill simplifies veterans' compensation arrangements, the systems remain complex, with veterans and their families still eligible for support under multiple acts. This needs very careful management by Veterans' Affairs.

This bill also requires ongoing consideration and review. That is why we will be moving a second reading amendment, calling for the government to review the statement of principles and the role of the Repatriation Medical Authority offices—not to try and slow things down but to make sure that the statement of principles is fit for purpose and that no-one is slipping through the cracks because the statement of principles is being applied too rigidly—and to look at ways to ensure that the RMAs can do their job without hindrance.

Despite this complexity and despite the time and consideration that has gone into drafting this bill to streamline and harmonise compensation for veterans, we have an eleventh-hour amendment put forward by the government to establish a new veterans commissioner. This is also a recommendation of the royal commission, so the intent and the principle of establishing a commissioner will not be objected to. However, this amendment is being rushed through with a lack of consultation with the very people who have been part of this process all the way along and who participated in the recent Senate inquiry into this bill. This amendment was not part of that inquiry. Those people read about it only last week and have raised quite significant concerns with the way it has been drafted. The question needs to be asked: why does this amendment have to be rushed through today, when a commissioner was already in the pipeline?

On 17 January, Mr Michael Manthorpe was appointed interim commissioner to deliver the establishment of a legislated body by September. This amendment is being rushed through to establish a body by September without allowing consultation and scrutiny, and that is the concern that has been raised with us. The Families of Veterans Guild have written to us specifically requesting the amendment be withdrawn because they say the amendment is a surprise to many stakeholders within the veteran community who, despite receiving multiple communications about the vets bill and a media release about the appointment of the interim commissioner, were not advised about this significant amendment. They fundamentally disagree with rushing this unconsulted amendment through parliament, and they point out that it could have significant consequences for the system and communities within it. The key issues they raise are the lack of transparency and consultation and that there are only two public reports on the status of the implementation of the royal commission required by this amendment; they would like to see further reports.

While we're not opposing this amendment, we are proposing to put through an amendment of our own requiring that the commission be reviewed. Effectively, what should have happened was for us to have had this amendment at the time of the Senate inquiry or to have had it as a standalone bill that we could have sent to a Senate inquiry and had a review on to ensure that it was for purpose, that people could be consulted and that the design of the commission was fit for purpose. We're now having to do that back to front, because the last thing we want to see is the streamlining and harmonisation of the compensation program be held up in disputes. We will pass the substantive bill and accept the amendment, but we hope that our subsequent amendment calling for a review will also gain support. This is a very sensitive and complex area, and most Defence Force personnel enlist and serve their time and then transition back to civilian life okay. Most of them go on to make an enormous contribution to civilian life. A hell of a lot of them work in voluntary services, and I thank them for their continued service to our nation.

I want to take this opportunity to mention and thank Disaster Relief Australia, who are an organisation established by veterans for veterans and veteran volunteers. They step up post disaster and provide management and logistics support to communities that have been impacted by natural disasters. I am sure they are in Far North Queensland as we speak, assisting in the recovery and clean-up efforts. That is an organisation that plays an important role in supporting our veteran community, connecting our veteran members with business holders and with other veterans and giving them that support network. We know through the work of the royal commission that those connections, initiatives and organisations like DRA to assist veterans—similarly to things like veterans' wellbeing centres—provide a hub for connection and support and can really help veterans post their full-time service. We will be supporting this bill, as I said at the outset. It has been a long time coming, but it is the right thing to do to streamline it. I really hope that we continue to watch, monitor and hold the DVA to account. I'm sure they're preparing for the next estimates diligently. Let's hope that we can make our veterans' lives a little bit easier by passing this bill.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate,

(a) notes that there remains concern about aspects of the operation of this bill and, in particular, the rigid nature of the Statement of Principles used in determining claims for liability for injuries, diseases and deaths made by veterans; and

(b) calls on the Government to cause a review to be undertaken by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and in consultation with relevant stakeholders, into:

(i) whether the Statement of Principles are fit for purpose in ensuring that every veteran receives just and timely support,

(ii) the functions of the Repatriation Medical Authority, and

(iii) whether further changes are needed to relevant legislation, policy, procedures or guidelines to improve outcomes for veterans with unique or unusual circumstances".

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

The Australian Greens support the policy of harmonising the current veterans' entitlements and rehabilitation and compensation arrangements from three acts into one. To that extent, we will be supporting the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, and we will be navigating our way through a variety of amendments that have been proposed from all around the chamber on the bill. However, there needs to be continuing support and dialogue with veterans and their families to ensure that the intent of the bill is met—that is, that no-one is left worse off. We've had that statement repeatedly from the minister, and I take him at his word. But I can tell you now that the veteran community, with their advocates and friends in this chamber, will be holding the government to that and ensuring that that fundamental underpinning of this harmonisation legislation is met and that no-one is actually worse off.

The bill represents what I would call a modest bureaucratic change into how veterans' entitlements are managed in this country. It doesn't pretend to be a response to the final report from the royal commission, for the most obvious reason that it was tabled before the final report was released. That matter has been confirmed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in the inquiry we had into the bill and in exchanges in estimates as well. This bill won't in itself make any of the essential changes that veterans and their supporters know are needed to address the core recommendations of the spirit of that royal commission. That is unfinished work. This bill largely benefits the bureaucracy, with benefits for veterans—there will be some as a result of this, though largely incidental to the bureaucratic benefits that are delivered from simplifying three schemes into one.

What we did see in the inquiry was very clear evidence that the legislation governing veterans' entitlements and their rehabilitation and compensation rights is extraordinarily complex. It's incredibly difficult for even engaged advocates and lawyers to navigate, and we saw that it harms veterans and harms their families. The current approach of veterans being covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, the DRCA; and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the MRCA, is just not fit for purpose. That was absolutely clear.

The scope of this bill is intentionally limited to not address the fundamental ways in which veterans are dealt with. But as the TPI Federation said in their evidence to the inquiry:

… the proposed changes to the legislation actually is not intended to alleviate suicidal ideation but rather tries to address issues that the Government and the Bureaucracy has with the legislation. This 'Simplification' is for the purpose of administration and not for the benefit of the Veterans and their families.

From my perspective, having heard that evidence, having sat through the inquiry and having spoken with veterans and their advocates in the organisation, I think what we can say is that simplified administration could, to some very modest degree, empower veterans to better navigate the bureaucracy. That is a modest win for veterans. But the point is still clear that this bill is not actually intended to address those myriad issues with veteran compensation. It just doesn't; it's urgent unfinished business.

What we do know is that the recommendations of the royal commission remain overwhelmingly unaddressed, and we need to work across the chamber to ensure that the rights and needs based entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation rights that veterans should expect after service are actually in place. We look forward to working with the government. In fact, we look forward to working across the chamber, and I particularly want to commend the work of Senator Lambie. She's been an unfailing advocate, and I acknowledge the bravery she has shown in that space to work across the chamber to implement the recommendations of the royal commission.

There are some matters that remain unaddressed. One of the strong lines of evidence in the inquiry was about how much of the language is incredibly dated, even in the updated bill. The Families of Veterans Guild pointed out in their submission to the committee:

The first thing that needs to be done is to include veteran families and to remove archaic language which perpetuates power dynamics and isn't consistent with contemporary standards. Language like 'wholly dependent partner', 'dependents' and 'attendants' no longer meets community expectations and devalues the role of veteran families. If the Bill were to include amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) to replace this language with the words 'veteran families' or 'families of veterans' then the Act too would need to define them …

I do note that, when that's tested across the broader veteran community, the difficulty has been landing those definitions and determining where 'veteran families' begin and end or what 'families of veterans' would mean. But it shouldn't be a task beyond a competent government and bureaucracy to engage and take the language from the 1950s and turn it into something that genuinely represents that sweep of supports—family and close support—that veterans have and need, often because the formal system itself doesn't support them.

We note that there's the introduction of reforms to the presumptive liability provisions. They do look like, and we tested that in the inquiry, a modest positive step because there are certain conditions where, if veterans develop them after a period of service, the presumption should be that they actually arose from service without veterans having to go through incredibly complex steps. Tragically, that includes a series of cancers for veterans who were exposed to chemicals that we now know, and indeed a good-faith employer would have known at the time for much of their work, are likely to be cancer causing. Some of that is already covered in existing bureaucratic determinations, but, as the evidence becomes clearer, more of those conditions should be included. Veterans who served in conflict zones or had extended peacekeeping obligations, when they present with often quite complex PTSD, shouldn't have to go through a process of proving that their PTSD arose from their service. Presumptive liability allows for that compensation to flow at the time they need it, which is when they first present, not a year and a half after their lawyers manage to persuade the department to move.

I do ask and I'd seek the minister to address how the new scheme will work in practice. There doesn't seem to be a clear, transparent process. We had a commitment from the government that all the existing conditions covered by presumptive liability would be grandfathered through an administrative process, and we'd like the government to confirm that. But then there is no clarity about what the process will be to add future presumptive liability claims. I think the government owes the veterans, their families and their communities that transparency. We ask for that to be clear.

How will the statements of principles regime be applied? We know that there have been concerns over issues of eligibility, and we've heard these from stakeholders and veterans. They were raised in the inquiry and they've been raised historically. One clear example that has been repeatedly raised with us is the surviving 1965-72 national servicemen who served overseas or personnel who were not in a warlike condition as determined by Defence but certainly were exposed to danger. Those nashos in that period from 1965 to 1972 were conscripted. They didn't have a choice. If they went overseas and served in Vietnam and were directly exposed in Vietnam, they had a certain set of entitlements, but, if, for example, they went to Butterworth in Malaysia and did perimeter patrols, they were found to not be in warlike conditions even though they were under threat of attack throughout much of that work that they did. As for those nashos who spent six years here as conscripts instead of on service overseas, they've been largely rubbed from history. It doesn't seem right to us, and we have amendments to try and remedy that historical injustice to the nashos.

I particularly want to note that many veterans who served in peacekeeping actions with the ADF served in conditions that put them at incredible personal risk. Indeed, one of the most recent serious injuries suffered by ADF personnel was during an attack on a peacekeeping operation on the border between Lebanon and Israel. They were hit by a missile strike. The department has a table of peacekeeping missions that are found to qualify for warlike service, but the question is: why have some peacekeeping missions that were incredibly dangerous not been included? There's a list of them.

We have an amendment that we'd urge this chamber to support that seeks a review of those peacekeeping operations and the extent to which peacekeeping operations where people were exposed to incredible risk have been deemed to not be warlike service. That would include such things as the United Nations Commission for Indonesia in January of 1949—some of those veterans are still with us, and that was an incredibly dangerous deployment—as well as the United Nations Yemen Observation Mission, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers. Those, of course, were established by protocol between Egypt and Israel. The list could go on. These veterans were exposed to incredible hardship and real and genuine danger, but, because the definition of 'warlike deployment' requires some kind of military intent, despite the risks and despite the dangers, they feel like they're treated like second-class veterans. We hope that will end, and we hope that there will be majority support for a review of peacekeeping operations.

I particularly want to note the advocacy of the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association, the APPVA, who said in their submission:

… the APPVA is concerned that a legislative limitation on the definition of a veteran, risks recreating the historical problems created by differentiating between different classes of veterans, even when these veterans served side-by-side on the same operation. If this issue remains unaddressed, the government will simply recreate the policy complexity, inter-veteran tensions, administrative intransigence, and poor outcomes that have adversely impacted veterans' support arrangements for decades.

Stopping there, this may seem like some kind of legal argument about what are or aren't warlike conditions, and there's a definition there, and, if you fall on one side, you're recognised and, if you fall on the other, you're not. When you talk to veterans, this is incredibly important to them not just for the compensation benefits they get but for the status and recognition of their service.

I do want to thank the government for working with us on having amendments to ensure that there will be a statutory review within a year. I think that's important, and that's a good faith amendment. The minister's office, I think, have been dealing with complex legislation, navigating their internal stakeholders and external stakeholders as best they can. We do have very real concerns, though, for how the last-minute amendment to implement recommendation 122 of the royal commission has found its way as a small novel attached to the end of this bill. We will support the creation of the commission, but we've heard from the veterans community how surprised they were that it came in this way and how little consultation there was, and we think it's fundamental that there be a parliamentary review of that.

I finish by giving special thanks to the TPI Federation of Australia, the Families of Veterans Guild, the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association, the Defence Force Welfare Association and the nashos—the national servicemen—for their engagement with my office. I would be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge the work of my staff and, particularly, Sam Brennan in doing that work and getting us to the position we are in.

This bill makes modest changes. We'll back in the modest changes. We hope for improvements by way of amendment, but I can tell you now there's a bloody lot more work to be done.

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

I rise to make a few remarks on the substantive bill, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, and then a couple of remarks regarding the two amendments that I have co-sponsored with my colleague Senator Davey.

This is probably the sixth or seventh inquiry that I have been involved with during my time as a senator, having come from a defence background. The welfare of our veterans is important, and it has come before the parliament on multiple occasions. This bill seeks to do something that a number of stakeholders over many years have called for, in terms of simplifying the system so that we can put into effect what the current Chief of Army said in his opening remarks at the Land Forces conference last year—that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reduce suicide and suicidality and that we can and must do more to ensure that we do not leave our mates behind, fallen on their own personal battlefield.

There is a challenge we have with this bill, with the eight schedules that were originally part of it and were subject to the inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—I see the secretary of that committee sitting here in the chamber, so thank you for your work and that of your team in helping to facilitate that inquiry—as well as, as colleagues have highlighted, the surprise ninth schedule that has come in regarding the commission. Those do a lot to bring about some of the structural changes that are required and some reform that will, hopefully, make the process easier, but it's important to remember that this process is dealing with people, with individuals.

I noticed that the royal commission highlighted in their report:

Risk and protective factors interact in complex and unpredictable ways in people's lives. Similarly, exposure to known risk factors for suicide and suicidality does not affect everyone in the same way.

That means that, whilst I applaud and welcome a number of measures to make three complex bills somewhat more aligned and simple, in one measure, we have to remember that no structure in and of itself, particularly if there are rigid definitions, will achieve what the Chief of Army has talked about, which is making sure we don't leave any of our mates behind. While things like the statement of principles, which are going to be embedded into the new system, have proven to be effective in simplifying some decision-making—and I would accept the evidence that, in many cases, it has accelerated the decision-making—they have also had the perverse effect of arbitrarily excluding some veterans who perhaps have unique or unusual circumstances or things that weren't envisaged by the people who put the statement of principles together.

If we are to achieve the Chief of Army's vision of not leaving any one of our mates behind, we need to make sure not only that we refine the process and put in place good measures—I welcome, for example, the fact that we have gone from looking for causality under MRCA to now looking at a temporal connection. The government and Defence have essentially accepted the fact that you don't need to prove that your deployment—for example, to Afghanistan—is the direct cause and have medical records to show it. If you were there at the appropriate time of the kinds of actions that may have caused that, then that temporal causality will establish the fact that the Commonwealth has an obligation to look after you. That's been a long time coming, and it builds on things like non-liability health care, where we have basically said that if you're in the ADF we will look after you. That took a long time to come in, but it's those kinds of changes that meet the real human need and that we have to have.

I will leave my comments on the substantive bill there and address a couple of brief remarks regarding the two amendments. As two other colleagues have indicated, there was significant surprise amongst the veterans community and ex-service organisations about the very-last-minute inclusion of an amendment from the government to establish the commission. Whilst we accept that it's a recommendation of the royal commission, if you read through the amendment, you will see that this is a body which is given quite remarkable powers. People will go to jail if they don't cooperate and work with the commissioner. And yet there is very little transparency in terms of the appointment, oversight, costings and all of the subordinate rules and regulations for how it will run. Most importantly, it was not co-designed with the people who it is intended to benefit or those who have lived experience in the whole veterans and DVA system. If there is one thing that governments of both persuasions have often talked about, it's the importance of stakeholder engagement and the principle of working with people who are going to be affected and to put something in at the last minute with no ability for the Senate to scrutinise that, I think, is very poor.

As Senator Davey said, we are not going to stay in the way of the passage of this bill, because, as groups like the RSL and others have highlighted, we've waited too long for this and we should get this through. But we know that the commission is due to come in in September of this year, and the second-reading amendment that the coalition is putting forward is intended to provide the impetus to commence a review that provides the opportunity for the consultation that should have occurred before this amendment was actually brought before the parliament. I encourage people on the crossbench and in the government to support this coalition position, because what it's providing is an opportunity, even once the parliament is prorogued, for stakeholders to say, 'Yes, there is an inquiry coming. What comment would we like to make on this commission? What do we think it needs to be able to do?' so that, when a new government is formed after the election and even during the caretaker period, while the department is designing and working around what the commission would look like, we start building the evidence base for a co-designed process. In those months leading up to the commencement in September this year, at least there would be an opportunity, which currently there has not been, for stakeholders to have a voice.

I recognise that Senator Lambie has put her own amendment forward, which is welcome. She has given thought to, perhaps, some changes that should occur, who appoints et cetera, but I still believe there needs to be that broader consultation. This amendment is intended to say, 'Let's have a co-designed process for the affected stakeholders so, before it becomes operational in September, we give veterans, their families and their support groups the opportunity to have some input into this commission.' That is the substantive amendment going in.

The second-reading amendment goes to the issue of how we pick up the individual. It picked up on the words of the royal commission that highlight that every person responds differently. I come to the statement of principles. They provide a framework by which some groups—I'm going to refer here to an article that was actually written in the Examiner newspaper by Mel Dee back in December last year. It's a very useful, succinct summary of some case studies and some of the issues at play. That's where these quotes are coming from. I've chosen these because they are quite a succinct summary of some of the concerns various stakeholders have raised.

I've talked about the statement of principles and the fact that there's broad support by many within the community, because they have expedited decisions for many people. But it's the interaction between the Repatriation Medical Authority, the RMA, and the statement of principles that is of some concern. DVA have come out and very specifically said that they do not want to make individual decisions unless the RMA approves a change to the SOP overall. But if we take what the royal commission said as fact, and if we hear what psychologists and others tell us, individuals do respond differently. So my view is that, like we have non-liability health care, presumptive liability and temporal connections as opposed to causal relationships, if a veteran has a couple of well-credentialled medical experts saying, 'We think this person is suffering this effect because of their defence service, and here is our evidence,' we should have a system that is flexible enough to say, 'The presumption, on the strength of these two medical experts, is that this veteran should be supported by the Commonwealth.' If a subsequent review finds out that this is not actually something that is worth putting into the broader SOP then that's fine, but the timeframe, which the royal commission found in some cases exceeded 12 months, affects the broader framework and system. It doesn't increase the suicidality of the individual.

I recognise that departments and governments hate the concept of unbounded liability, but I think we can put enough checks and balances in to make sure that we avoid a situation where people go doctor shopping to find someone who's known to be supportive. I think there's a way we can do that, but we can provide the flexibility to pick up those individual differences. We can have a presumption of support. By providing the support that the Chief of Army talked about—'Leave none of our mates behind'—we can keep that person out of the dark spiral that they can so easily fall into. And then we take the review over a longer period to see if we should change the system.

So that's our second reading amendment. We recognise it's not going to get done by September this year. It's a complex issue, so the recommendation is that within six months there should be feedback on that particular issue. I would encourage senators on the government benches and the crossbench to support those two amendments looking into the RMA and the SOP to make sure they are fit for purpose and that every individual receives just and timely support from the Commonwealth they have served.

I also encourage support for the opposition's substantive amendments, which would put in place the opportunity for stakeholders to have their voices heard around the design and function of this commission. I understand that that will still overlap with the work others will be doing to stand up the commission. But the best possible outcome would be if the next government—and I trust it will be a coalition government, but, even if it is a Labor-Greens alliance, whoever is in power should do this—sought to commit to use this as an opportunity for co-design, to make sure that what is actually implemented in September is fit for purpose and meets the desires, expectations and needs of the veteran community, including their families.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 and I support veterans. Today I want to speak about a World War I veteran who is very close to my heart: my pop, Corporal Harry Thorpe, a Brabralung man of the Gunnai nation. Blackfellas were originally not allowed to serve, under the Defence Act 1903, but as enlistment numbers dwindled and the cost of horrific war grew, the government quietly shifted its stance, allowing First Nations people to serve—only when it suited the government, only when their sacrifice became necessary, but never with the full rights or recognition of those they fought beside.

Harry Thorpe was one of those men. He left his home on Lake Tyers Mission, where my family was displaced, to fight alongside thousands of men and women who hoped to do their part to fight for justice. When Pop left, Pop left his humpy behind. Out of respect, the locals left his old humpy untouched, waiting for his return. But like so many others, he never returned.

My pop, Lance Corporal Thorpe, was awarded the Military Medal and promoted to corporal for his courage and the leadership he showed during operations in Belgium on the night of 4 and 5 October 1917. On 9 August 1918, in France, a stretcher-bearer found him shot in the stomach. He died shortly afterwards and is now buried in the Heath Cemetery at Harbonnieres, France, with his mate William Rawlings, another First Nations Military Medal winner, who was killed on the same day.

Because Harry had been such a big part of the community, when he did not return, the lane where his humpy was left behind was named in his honour. It's now called Thorpes Lane. Thorpes Lane is now the site of the Lakes Entrance tip, right opposite a big mansion overlooking the ocean. This is the difference between how black and white soldiers are commemorated. So today I want to honour my pop and all the other First Nations men and women who fought in World War I and World War II. Their names, their sacrifices and their final resting places are too often forgotten and too often ignored.

Uncle Joe Flick, the grandson of Michael Flick, another black soldier, is changing that. His project, Bringing Their Spirits Home, is about truth, recognition and justice. He has spent years searching for the graves of First Nations soldiers buried overseas in France, Belgium, Egypt and Gallipoli, marking their names, tracing their stories and bringing them back to their families and their country. It's work that should've been done long, long ago.

We also have to reckon with what happened when our soldiers did return. White veterans were honoured, respected, celebrated and granted the land of First Peoples through the Soldier Settlement Scheme. They say 'leave no mate behind'; however, many First Nations veterans were given nothing—no land, no recognition and no mention. The very land they fought for was handed to others, while they were pushed aside, their service erased.

So I'm here today, refusing to let that history be buried. Through Uncle Joe Flick's work and through our voices, we are bringing the spirits home, not just in name but in the respect and honour they have always deserved, so their families will know where the final resting places of their ancestors are. We have all lost so many to violence. Wars have never brought justice, only more stolen land, more bloodshed and more broken promises. True honour lies not in conquest but in peace—and in returning what was taken and in refusing to fight wars that were never ours to begin with.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, you have about three minutes; my apologies.

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

I foreshadow that I will be moving the second reading amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, on amendment sheet 3032 revised, standing in my name. Veterans, their families, their kids and their mates fought for decades to get a royal commission into Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Since the commissioners handed down their recommendations, my office has been continually working and getting feedback from the veteran community and, most importantly, looking at amendments that will make the government's response to the royal commission's recommendations work for our veterans.

Recommendation 122 of the royal commission seeks to establish a new statutory entity headed up by a commissioner to oversee reform across the whole of the defence system. I had an amendment that would give the head of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission the powers of a royal commissioner, the power to provide independent oversight, the power to hold public hearings and the power to drive reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members. Unless that national commissioner has these powers, then things won't change and our veterans will continue to take their lives in record numbers.

I understand that we, and I, do not have a magic wand to stop all suicides, but if we get this right, by hell, we can reduce those numbers. The government loved this amendment so much that they copied it themselves. They wanted the win, and that's okay; I don't care who gets the credit, as long as our veterans and their families get the benefits.

We must extend the coverage of our liability to situations where members of the Australian Defence Force sustain injuries or fatalities during physical exercise or whilst on shore leave. With the way it is now, the liability falls way short, especially in cases of injury or death occurring outside the narrowly defined scope of 'on-duty service'.

Delays in accepting liability and delays in claims being ticked off massively impact on our veterans and their families. There has to be a time limit. My amendment means that claims for permanent impairment will be resolved within 120 days, and for incapacity it'll be within 90 days. This amendment includes safeguards to stop the clock, to account for reasonable delays like medical advice.

The:

Senator Lambie, I reluctantly have to interrupt you. You'll be in continuance. I now proceed to senators' statements.