MEDIA RELEASE

RSL PRIORITIES

It was with shock, disbelief, apprehension and anger that I felt when I read an article in `The Australian Opinions Section by Glenn Milne' on Monday 26 November 2001 regarding the Prime Minister's Ministerial appointments and specifically the comments made by NSW RSL President `Rusty' Priest, AVDSC Chairman Guy Griffiths and National RSL President Mr Peter Phillips. Their actions were unethical, unprofessional and inappropriate and I wish to inform you of our disappointment that people in these high positions of power could conduct such dealings. Were RSL members aware of such letters? Would they have agreed with the statements by these people? Mr Phillips stated Mr Scott had the veterans and general communities confidence. How can he say that? Has he surveyed those groups? Mr Phillips then goes on to say "he (Scott) and he wife are immensely popular face-to-face with our older veterans and young serving members". I seriously think if Mr Scott was to conduct a face-to-face with peacetime injured ex-service personnel, injured and ex members of the SASR and those in receipt of an antiquated TPI pension, that Mr Scott would think Afghanistan would make a lovely holiday destination at that particular time. Why do the older veterans like him? Is it because most are now 70 plus and can access the `Gold Card'? Why is he popular with the young serving members? Is it because they say everything is ok just like their superiors told them to? Mr Phillips certainly hit the nail smack on the head when he said, "they have contributed in a sympathetic way to commemorative events here and abroad". How many of these events has Mr Phillips attended and does he really need to go? Mr Phillips `urged' caution against a change of ministers. Why? Could it be because it may mean a reduction in commemorative `junkets' or god forbid, the end of them? As for being `resentful of new brooms', only those who are neglected and ignored feel resentment. As president of a group of neglected and mistreated injured ex-service personnel, and severely injured myself I feel resentment. The TPI veterans feel resentment. The SASR Assn feels resentment. Just when I thought there couldn't be anything that could top that, I proceeded to read Mr Priests comments. I burst into rapturous laughter and then re-read the paragraph. Mr Priest stated that, "Bruce Scott in his six years as our Minister of Veterans Affairs had brought dedication and commitment to the welfare of veterans, war widows and their dependants hitherto unrivalled by his Coalition predecessors." In Scott's time as Veterans Affairs minister he has done nothing whatsoever for the injured ex-defence members regarding the abysmal administration of the SRCA by MCRS. He continually pushed the new military compensation scheme issue aside by replying to our correspondence `assuring us', which may be the only word in Scott's thesaurus, of his governments commitment to veterans. This proposed scheme has been `actively considered' for over 18 months. Oh yes, definitely evidence of `dedication and commitment'. Then there's the depreciation of the TPI pension rate over the decades. What does it equate to now? Something like 44% of MTWE isn't it? And what did Mr Scott do about it? Don't think too hard and here's a hint: NOTHING! I'd say that 85% of the media releases Mr Scott put out would've been about government grants for some memorial or monument project. Not one release was to do with the Military Compensation Scheme update. The only thing Mr Scott was `committed and dedicated' to was to implement inequity. For example, Japanese POW compensation and National Service medal. Such was Mr Scott's `commitment and dedication' toward veterans and defence personnel, he allowed Mr Reith's SRCA and Other Legislation Amendments Bill go through without protecting the veterans that it now affects and he allowed ADF allowances and benefits to be taxed and reduced. And the final comments by Mr Griffiths were also laughable. He commented about a rapport between Mr Scott and the Australian veterans. Which veteran's movement has or should I say had the rapport with Mr Scott? It certainly wasn't the ESO's who continue to have issues and grievances even after 6 years of such a wonderful VA minister. The ISPA had no confidence in Mr Scott whatsoever as well as limited confidence in the RSL. Two years ago I wrote to NSW RSL seeking help hoping to highlight the anomaly regarding extra costs incurred by severely injured ex members of the ADF because of the need to have a carer. We hoped the RSL would get the details of the problems and pressure the government to change the anomaly, but alas, the reply MCRS sent to the RSL query was that there was no provision in the act for reimbursement of extra carers costs. So the RSL ended it there. Why? Was it because it was a peacetime ex-serviceman and SRCA related topic. Would it have been different if I had `faced the enemy' as Mr Scott loves to put it? Well, this setback did not stop us. This association continually supported one of its members all the way to the AAT and won his case to be reimbursed for carer's expenses. A win for all who require attendant care, including members of the RSL and members of the ESO's who make up the AVDSC. And we don't have to thank anyone for our victory. To summarize the issues, I would like to say that the above-mentioned people who wrote to the PM, and who were elected to represent a large community of very important people (our veterans), should stop and have a hard look at their agenda's and priorities. As heads of large and influential institutions, it is their responsibility to represent ALL RSL members without prejudice or favor. The RSL is concerned with dwindling numbers, yet has the RSL tried to find the reason? The answer is simple. It has failed its members. As stated earlier in this letter and reading the article, there seems to be a great emphasis on commemorations and memorials. Shouldn't the RSL be pressuring the government to fix anomalies, such as the TPI pension erosion? As a member of the RSL, I can categorically say Mr Priest and Mr Phillips were not representing my views and as a member of AVDSC, Mr Griffiths was not representing my, nor the ISPA's views. It seems the views of the hierarchy of AVDSC and the RSL appear to be different than what I assumed and I have no choice what so ever, other to resign the membership of the ISPA from the AVDSC until such time as the council begins supporting and campaigning for changes to anomalies raised by any ESO without the discriminatory factor of `operational service'. One final question. Am I, or any peacetime serviceperson less of a soldier, sailor, and airman or less dedicated and committed because we did not see action? A word of advice: Remember the Past - Live In The Present - Plan For The Future.