ADDRESS TO THE AUSTRALIAN VETERANS AND DEFENCE SERVICES COUNCIL

by the

SHADOW MINISTER FOR VETERANS' AFFAIRS

SENATOR MARK BISHOP

SYDNEY

4 FEBRUARY 2002

Mr President, members of Council

It is a pleasure to be with you today. This is my first address to an ex-service organization as Opposition spokesman for Veterans' Affairs.

It is significant to me that it should be to AVADSC because of your collective responsibility across the ex service community.

Second, it gives me a chance, early on, to meet a key group representing interests across the ex service community and to hear your views on the issues which you believe to be of consequence.

Third, it also provides me with a chance to make some early observations about the state of the nation with respect to veterans' issues, if that is not too presumptuous at this stage.

It is of course too soon for me to be making commitments on policy, and you need to know that Simon Crean and Jenny Macklin have firmly directed that all policy is under review .

I am therefore required in the coming months to draft papers on veteran policy for detailed consideration by the Caucus as part of a process which will go until

Today therefore I am somewhat limited in what I can say, so I will simply let you have some of my early impressions.

First though, let me tell you who I am.

I have been a Western Australian Senator since 1996. It has been my great honour to represent the Labor Party, where my antecedents are with the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees association in both SA and WA.

I am also a graduate in law from the University of Adelaide an in Public Administration from Harvard.

In the last Parliament I was shadow spokesman for Communications in the Senate, which I found both

challenging and rewarding for the policy insights it provided within an environment characterised as being dominated by rich and influential groups and individuals.

Having said that it is refreshing to note at least in the veterans' portfolio there does seem to be some degree of bipartisanship.

At least both the major parties respect and value our veterans for their commitment and sacrifice. For the Labor Party there should be no doubt about that and I remind everyone that above all else the ALP places people first.

It is not the deeds of politicians or the generals we remember - sometimes they are better forgotten - but it is the spirit of the individual both personally and collectively that we celebrate and for which we give thanks. Looking after those people is a paramount responsibility, which we will always honour.

The way in which we do that though, is a different matter. I can tell you one thing, and that is that I am going to be looking very closely at the policy and the administration of the Howard Government to make sure that veterans are being cared for and treated fairly.

From the little I have seen so far I suspect that all is not well in that regard.

As was realised by the Labor Party when last in government, policy on veterans programs needed revamping and a hard look was taken at the relevance of how veterans were cared for.

It was my colleague Senator Faulkner who first started the ball rolling with the streamlining of veterans' health delivery - which despite many misgivings by some has proven to be the right path to follow.

The review instigated by Senator Faulkner and undertaken by Professor Peter Baume was another attempt to have a fresh look at the structure of benefits, particularly disability compensation to see if there could be a better way.

Hence we now have, at least, the Repatriation Medical Authority, which has brought some measure of certainty for both the veteran and the taxpayer.

Since then, quite frankly, it seems there has been a policy desert, and apart from some large budget outlays, there has

been little - that is obvious to me - that has been designed to bring the range of benefits and services for veterans up to date.

Even then, I think it can be argued that some of the budget decisions, generous though they may be, have only served to continue the policy vacuum and ad hockery that has characterized the veterans' jurisdiction since the Howard Government first took office.

I know from some of the comments made to me already by veterans from WW 2, Korea and Vietnam who were actually shot at by enemy forces, that recent extensions of qualifying service have significantly diminished the value once placed on their service.

I therefore wonder whether what we really need is a good hard look at the way in which the ADF is compensated for risk rather than trying to rewrite history.

In fact the one initiative for which there was general bipartisan support, that of implementing the findings of the report of Mr Noel Tanzer, still has not seen the light of day.

I am told that implementation was stalled by the recently departed Mr Reith whose view was that compensation for

the military should be no different to that provided to public servants.

I tell you now, that is not an acceptable attitude.

In the event that the Government does honour its election promise to proceed with a new scheme, I look forward to working on the detail to make sure we get the best policy possible.

I certainly know from the general representations I have received from veterans and ex service people that

peacetime service can be every bit as dangerous as qualifying service - remembering that the SAS who feel

this most strongly are based in WA and are, as you know, part of the campaign looking at the upgrade of the T&PI pension.

Sadly I must say that giving the SAS access to the VEA, or anyone else for that matter, will not make much of a difference while ever its benefits structure fails to reflect the needs of the modern serviceman or woman.

Hence my criticism of the Government for failing to address the needs of the modern military with respect to issues of compensation and income support in particular.

It is, in fact, very sad that despite endless talks with the Government there has been not a jot of progress it seems to me, with the Government's attitude being that of Pontius Pilate, or better - divide and rule - telling the T&PI community and the ex service community to go away and work it out, and bring back the magic pudding for Government to consider.

For my part I can assure you that I am very willing to work with the ex service community to get a result on this one.

There are no silver bullets though and the cost

must be minimal.

I think it is clear that with a budget of over $ 8.6 billion dollars and all the other demands on the taxpayer, large

outlays without a good look at the existing budget will simply not be possible.

Moreover, any solution must not in any circumstances diminish the value of benefits being enjoyed now. It does strike me though that at current rates, almost half the Vietnam contingent may be T&PI before too long, so it is an issue of urgent need for attention.

There are of course many other topical matters within Veterans' Affairs, many on which I am not yet well versed, but hope to be soon.

Policy does though seem to have drifted whereby benefits are treated as rights, and that need is only a secondary issue.

My preferred approach would be to focus on good policy for those in need , and here I support the proposal by the Labor Party in the last Parliament to remove the means testing from disability pensions in the Social Security Act.

The means testing not only affects a large number of T&PI's without qualifying service, but perhaps as many as 60,000 World War 2 ex service people who, as they say, signed up to go but didn't.

Not only would this bring some consistency to policy across the board, but it would help many in need - rather than the better off .

Some of you will remember that my predecessor Senator Schacht, tried at least twice to introduce an amendment in the Senate to effect this legislative change but was rejected by the Government in the lower House.

One final observation I will make is that it is clear that much of the concern on veterans' policy is now being driven from younger veterans from the ADF of post WW2 service.

The impression quickly forming in my mind is of the totally distant and uncaring attitudes of the Defence bureaucracy with respect to ex service people. It seems that once you leave the gate that's it.

Maybe that's part of the desire of ex ADF people to be considered and treated as part of the veteran community.

Quite frankly any distinction is getting difficult to make and I will certainly be taking a holistic view of ex service needs - but without diminishing the value we traditionally give to service overseas.

No doubt there are many other matters worthy of comment by me, but as you will understand, I am still at that stage

where impressions are forming. Some of those I have floated with you today and I look forward to some feedback and comment. The issues are not new of course, but the will to address them will require leadership - a much-vaunted phrase these days but still sadly lacking

It is difficult for me to go much further and I thank you again for your kind invitation. If you have views on anything I have said I would certainly be most pleased if you would share them with me.

No doubt as I get to meet more people in the veteran and ex service community further refinement will take place and certainly when we next meet the discussion may be more vigorous.

I look forward to that.

Let me leave you though with some firm commitments. First , I am always willing to hear from you and to listen.

Second, flowing from the great and long held respect for veterans I will be looking carefully to make sure that veterans' benefits are not diminished.

And finally let me assure you that I will be working hard to get the Government to focus on policies which are relevant.

Thank you.