Veterans affairs

To Eddie

----- Original Message ----- From: Healy, Daele (Sen N. Stott Despoja)

Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:56 PM

Subject: Veterans affairs

For your information, this is a copy of the press release the Democrats put

out in response to veterans legislation passed on Thursday. I have also

included the two speeches Senator Bartlett gave. While they are largely

about the Democrats support for amendments for the Gold card and having

veterans' disability pensions exempted from social security means test

(neither of which were passed), there is also mention of SAS and TPI and

some other veterans issues.

I have included them in the body of this email as well as attached files.

Daele Healy

Adviser

Suite 14 B1, 7/421 Brunswick St

Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

Ph: 07 3252 7101 Fax 07 3252 8957

www.democrats.org.au

To Bob----- Original Message -----

From: Healy, Daele (Sen N. Stott Despoja)

Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:26 PM

Subject: Veterans affairs

For your information, this is a copy of the press release the Democrats put

out in response to veterans legislation passed on Thursday. I have also

included the two speeches Senator Bartlett gave. While they are largely

about the Democrats support for amendments for the Gold card and having

veterans' disability pensions exempted from social security means test

(neither of which were passed), there is also mention of SAS and TPI and

some other veterans issues.

I have included them in the body of this email as well as attached files.

Daele Healy

Adviser

Suite 14 B1, 7/421 Brunswick St

Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

Ph: 07 3252 7101 Fax 07 3252 8957

www.democrats.org.au

 

 

Senator Andrew Bartlett

Australian Democrats

Veterans' Affairs Spokesperson

21 21 March 2002 MEdia RELEASE

Democrats move for Gold Card for all WWII Veterans

The Australian Democrats today moved an amendment to Veterans legislation

calling on the Government to give the Gold Card to all service personnel who

served during World War Two.

The Government has undertaken to give the Gold Card only to those veterans

who have qualifying service, and has indicated they will not support the

Democrats' amendment.

"In 1942 Australians faced the threat of invasion. On the 50th anniversary

of the war being brought to our shores, it would be appropriate to recognise

the war efforts of all who served during World War Two," said Senator Andrew

Bartlett, the Democrats spokesperson on Veterans' Affairs.

"Unfortunately, when the Government announced last year that they would

extend eligibility to the Gold Card, it was interpreted by many World War

Two veterans to mean that those without qualifying service would be included

and they were disappointed to find out that is not the case.

"The Democrats' amendment responds to the concerns of those veterans who

believed they were promised a Gold Card by the Government," Senator Bartlett

said.

A similar amendment was supported by the independent MPs in the lower house.

"What constitutes qualifying service throws up a number of anomalies where

service personnel did face warlike dangers but that is not recognised by the

Government. What constitutes qualifying service can be a quite arbitrary

decision in some cases," said Senator Bartlett.

"The provision of the Gold Card to some members of the veterans community

and not others certainly causes divisions.

"Even within a battalion, some veterans have the Gold Card and some do not,

depending on how they travelled to a posting. If you served in Darwin during

one period of time you are recognised as having qualifying service, but if

it was a few days later, you are not. There are World War Two veterans who

served in Australia at the closest point to Timor, that are not recognised

as having qualified service, and therefore will not receive a Gold Card,"

Senator Bartlett said.

"They were healthy when they enlisted and they went where they were sent. If

they need medical care now, the Democrats believe the Government has an

obligation to provide it."

On another veterans bill passed today, the Democrats supported the ALP's

amendment to have the veterans disability pension exempted from the social

security income test.

"We have moved for this previously so we welcome the ALP pursuing it today,"

Senator Bartlett said.

 

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS AMENDMENT (GOLD CARD EXTENSION) BILL 2002: Second

Reading

21 Marsh 2002

Senator BARTLETT <http://Hyperlink&CLASS=NAME&XRefID=DT6> (Queensland)

(1.00 p.m.) -This is the first piece of veterans' legislation the Senate has

considered since the government was re-elected. We have a new minister and a

new shadow minister in that portfolio. I would start by welcoming Minister

Vale and Senator Bishop to the Veterans' Affairs portfolio, which is one

that is often seen as a very minor one. I think that is a great shame

because it affects a very large number of Australians and a very special

group of Australians who have special needs.

This particular piece of legislation extends full repatriation and health

care entitlements, otherwise known as the Gold Cards, to Australian veterans

aged 70 or over who have qualifying service from post-World War II. This

will largely impact on veterans of the Korean War, Malayan emergency,

Indonesian confrontation and veterans of the Vietnam wars who have reached

the age of 70. I assume it will also eventually affect Gulf War veterans and

people who are becoming veterans as we speak and others as they eventually

reach the age of 70 years where the government recognises those conflicts as

qualifying service.

The bill is an initiative that the Australian Democrats support and have

called for previously. It is something that I as veterans' affairs

spokesperson first called for in this place in April 200, nearly two years

ago, although other Democrat senators have raised it before that. It gives

an entitlement that began with World War I veterans who received a similar

entitlement to health care in 1918. World War II veterans of qualifying

service received it in 1999. The important point is that all World War I

veterans receive this entitlement. However, when in 1999 World War II

veterans received this initiative, it was limited to those with qualifying

service. I have a second reading amendment today which was circulated in

this chamber a few days ago which addresses that anomaly and calls on the

government to fix that anomaly.

The Democrats recognise the special obligations owed to veterans and we

support this legislation. The amendment I am moving is to acknowledge a

group that many people believe has missed out, so it is probably appropriate

if I move that amendment standing in my name. It is unfortunate, when the

government announced last year the initiative contained in this bill, that

it was interpreted at the time by many veterans to mean that they would

receive the Gold Card, even though they did not have qualifying service. I

am sure they have been very disappointed-in fact, I know they have-to find

out that that is not the case. If the government was to take on board the

aim of the amendment the Democrats are moving, it would make it the case and

they would receive the Gold Card that many believe they were promised by the

coalition before the election.

Many of those who enlisted and served in World War II do not have qualifying

service, through no fault of their own. Service personnel went where they

were sent and the differences in where they were sent can often be quite

arbitrary in terms of what counts as qualifying service and what does not.

In one letter I received on this issue, and it is one of many, it says:

We agreed to serve our country and our King anywhere we might be sent by our

service chiefs. We could not choose nor change our postings or appointment.

We went where we were sent, and most of us for five or six bob a day. It

seems we are being penalised for the decisions of our service controllers.

The author of this letter serves with the RAAF from 1941 until 1945 and in

the Australian Navy from 1946 until 1949. What constitutes qualifying

service throws up a number of anomalies where service personnel did face

warlike dangers but that is not recognised by the government. In 1942,

Australians faced the threat of invasion. Darwin was bombed killing

hundreds. A Japanese submarine entered Sydney Harbour and many other

significant events occurred that brought the war to our near our shores.

This year, on the 50th anniversary of what was probably the greatest threat

Australia has faced in a military sense, it would be appropriate to

recognise the war efforts of all who served on our shores during that time.

What constitutes qualifying service can be quite an arbitrary decision in

some cases. The provision of the Gold Card to some members of the veterans

community and not others certainly causes divisions. If you served in Darwin

during one period of time, you are recognised as having qualifying service

but, potentially, if you were there just a few days later you were not.

There were World War II veterans who served in the Second World War in

Australia at the closest point to Timor that are not recognised as having

qualifying service and therefore will not receive the Gold Card. An

artillery Army unit went from Perth to the north of Broome, where it was

thought the Japanese would invade. Half went by sea and therefore would have

a Gold Card; the other half went by motor transport and did not qualify.

That is a major distinction when you are within the one battalion. The

chairman of the Gold Card campaign provided that example. Eligibility

entitlements is an area of ongoing review and we can see that with the Moore

review and the current review of veterans' entitlements in this legislation

itself.

We must, and I think it is appropriate when you are dealing with an issue of

Gold Card, which obviously relates to people's ill health, that many

veterans literally paid the price of losing their good health as a result of

their service to this country. They were healthy when they enlisted or they

would not have been able to serve in the first place and they went where

they were sent. If they need medical care now then I believe we as a nation

have a responsibility to provide it. I move that motion standing in my name

and I urge the government to recognise the genuineness of his intent and

take it on board. I also hope that the ALP would give it support as well.

 

VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FURTHER BUDGET 2000 AND OTHER

MEASURES) BILL 2002: Second Reading

21 March 2002

Senator BARTLETT <http://Hyperlink&CLASS=NAME&XRefID=DT6> (Queensland)

(1.24 p.m.) -The Democrats support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation

Amendment (Further Budget 2000 and Other Measures) Bill 2002

<http://Hyperlink&CLASS=BILL&XRefID=R1439&Short=Veterans'+Affairs+Legislatio

n+Amendment+(Further+Budget+2000+and+Other+Measures)+Bill+2002>, which will

bring about minor positive changes that are largely already reflected in the

social security system. It enacts a more generous treatment of pension

payments received by partners of compensation recipients, amends treatment

of financial assets which are unrealisable for the purposes of hardship

cases under the assets test and streamlines income streams under social

security law. Having responsibility on behalf of the Democrats for the

social security portfolio as well as the veterans' affairs portfolio, I

recall our support for those measures when they were passed in a

complementary fashion with the social security law.

We support this legislation, as I said. Because others spoke after I had

moved my amendment during the debate on the previous bill, I will briefly,

with the indulgence of the Senate, note the comments that were made in

relation to it. Obviously, cost is always an issue. I do not think in this

case that timing should have been an issue, because the amendment was

circulated a couple of days ago, but I hope that, given there is a review

being conducted by the government on gold card entitlements, these aspects

will be taken into account.

When we are looking at veterans' entitlements, whether relating to health or

to the other issues that we are dealing with under this legislation, there

are often anomalies, and veterans often suffer hardships because of gaps in

other aspects of public policy. One of the reasons why we have such a big

demand for increased access to the gold card, in the Democrats' view, is

because of inadequacies in our public health system. If we had a properly

funded public health system, and if older people generally had faith that

the public health system could look after them, there would be a less

desperate struggle to obtain the gold card. It goes back to the issue of the

cost of extending the gold card. If the appropriate level of funding was put

into health services rather than wasted on things like the private health

rebate, there would be less demand for the gold card and more funds

available to provide it for those who should be entitled to it. So I think

it is an appropriate matter to consider further.

The Democrats support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Bishop on

behalf of the Labor Party. Indeed, in June 2000, on behalf of the Democrats,

I moved an amendment which had the same intent as the one that Senator

Bishop has put forward. We were pleased that the ALP supported that

amendment at the time and we are pleased that they have moved a similar

amendment which at least expresses the principle that the government should

remove that anomaly. The spokesperson for the ALP then was Senator Schacht.

In this area, he has provided a good legacy for Senator Bishop to try to

fill and build upon.

I recall that our amendment on this issue was an amendment to social

security legislation, because the negative side of the anomaly is the

treatment of income and compensation by the social security department and

not the treatment of it by the veterans' affairs department. So the

legislation that needs to be amended is the Social Security Act rather than

the veterans' affairs act, and I presume that is why the amendment we are

considering is a second reading amendment that expresses that view relating

to veterans.

As I recall, it was passed by the Senate as a substantive amendment to the

legislation, but the government did not accept it. It bounced backwards and

forwards a couple of times, and eventually the Senate did not insist upon

it. At the time the government said they would consider the issue in the

budget context. We know that a submission was put forward to the government

by the department to remove that anomaly, and it was knocked out by the

Expenditure Review Committee-the razor gang-in the finance department. At

the time Senator Schacht gave a commitment that if Labor got into government

they would move to amend this. That did not happen, of course, but I trust

that, if we have an opportunity to press it in a substantive sense regarding

social security legislation, that support from the ALP will still be there,

because the passage of this amendment will not make that happen. It is a

good amendment and we support it as it increases the pressure on the

government for action in that regard.

At that time, nearly two years ago, the government rejected the amendment

that the Democrats put forward. They claimed that it was not correctly

drafted to achieve what we wanted to achieve. The government did not offer

to provide any assistance to draft what they thought would be a suitable

amendment, which they obviously had the resources to do. So that aspect

still needs to be resolved as well. The present situation, where the

disability pension is included in the social security income test, is in

contradiction to the government's position that this pension is paid to

veterans as compensation.

As has been said by Senator Bishop, the coalition promised to review this

matter before they won government in 1996. The review that was undertaken

was unfortunately an internal one. For reasons that I still do not

understand, the government refused to provide copies of that review or to

publicly release it. We have established from answers in this place in the

budget estimates that the measure would cost about $20 million, as Senator

Bishop said, which is not a great deal of money to correct an anomaly which

is very significant to those affected. It seems strange that the government

cannot bring itself to correct this admitted anomaly which takes money away

from a significant number of veterans. It makes one wonder what the point is

of promising to review anomalies if not only no action is taken-even though

the anomaly is still acknowledged-but also no-one is even allowed to see the

contents of that review.

It is notable that all the speakers on the bills say they support veterans.

Quite rightly, many speakers pointed to their relatives who are veterans or

to people in their community or their electorate. They pointed to the

admiration they have for them. Senator Bishop pointed to the quality of

their efforts not only during their service but also to their continued

efforts as members of the community. It is a group that, in a political

sense, often gets more praise than just about any other group in the

community, but when it comes to making decisions that affect their lives

directly we cannot seem to advance the issue. I really hope this is one area

where we can get some advances during the term of this government.

I recognise there are always financial and anomalies issues and some others,

which we have referred to in the context of the gold card debate. But the

issue we are debating is always pretty close to the top of the list for

veterans. It is one they would like to see addressed; it is not particularly

expensive. It has been a source of frustration for many years and I really

hope we can get movement on it. There are other issues that would benefit

veterans that also seem to have stalled. One I would point to, and of which

others would be aware, is the rate of the totally and permanently

incapacitated pension, the TPI, which has also been a matter of concern for

some time.

I would like to take the opportunity while I am speaking on this legislation

to express formally the condolences of the Australian Democrats to the

family and colleagues of Brigadier Alf Garland who passed away recently. He

served as president of the RSL for five years from 1988 following a long and

honourable military career. He served overseas on many occasions, starting

with the Korean War, and he commanded the first Australian SAS squadron in

Borneo, a particularly poignant point as the SAS is serving at the moment in

Afghanistan.

With regard to the SAS, I should also mention the support of the Democrats

for changes to the treatment of SAS personnel who are injured during

training. Their training is more hazardous than most qualifying service in

most circumstances and they would certainly benefit from the amendment that

we are considering. Again, it really comes back to the issue of anomalies

when you are looking at what determines qualifying service. The rate of

injury amongst SAS personnel is amongst the highest in the defence

forces-regardless of whether or not they are going into combat

situations-because of the special nature of their activities. They are far

more likely to get significant injuries and, as I said, their training is

often more hazardous than some of the situations that relate to qualifying

service.

In conclusion, the Democrats support the bill and the amendment that calls

for an exemption of the disability pension from the social security income

test. The Department of Veterans' Affairs rightly recognises the veterans

disability income as compensation, but for some reason the Social Security

Act and the department continue to count it as income. That allows them to

substantially reduce the amount paid for Veterans' Affairs pensions. The

disability pension for veterans is compensation for disabilities and disease

incurred during service and, in the view of the Democrats, it is part of the

special obligation owed to veterans. In some instances, we are talking about

people with extremely severe injuries related to their service and they are

losing a large junk of their pension when they receive that disability

payment, which is meant to be compensation. So it is long overdue for that

anomaly to be addressed and removed. For that reason we support this

amendment and also signal that we will continue to pursue it, as I am sure

the ALP will, as other opportunities arise in this chamber.