Mr JOHNS(11.28) —I move:

That this House acknowledges the debt of the Australian community to veterans and the need to compensate them for their sacrifices, and notes the achievements of the Government in providing for the welfare of veterans in times of restraint in public expenditure.

The best way I can illustrate the current practice and policy of the Government with respect to veterans is by pointing out that the Government has made a response to a report of what is called the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee. In the last couple of years the new Act, the Veterans' Entitlements Act, has been established and the Government agreed to have that Act and its implementation monitored by the veteran community. That Monitoring Committee has now brought down its report and the Government has responded-and responded extremely generously.

I would like to detail five areas in which there has been a recommendation from the Committee and the Government has responded positively. The first matter from the Committee concerned intermediate and special rate pensions. It was felt by the Committee that it was too much to ask that a pensioner should first have a 100 per cent general rate pension before he could become eligible for a special rate pension. The Government was not able to agree entirely with this recommendation by the Committee because it has been held since 1920 that a special rate pension should be granted because a veteran could not work. In other words, it was a workers compensation-type award, and frequently we are now finding that veterans have an entire working life, retire, and, despite their disablement, are not eligible for a special rate pension because they have completed a lifetime of work. Nevertheless we agree with the Committee that it may have been a little too harsh to expect a pensioner who was near retirement to be on a 100 per cent general rate of pension. It was agreed, and I think most generously, by the Government that we would lower the requirement for the general rate of pension to 70 per cent. That is, if a veteran received 70 per cent of the general rate of pension he would be eligible to be considered for the totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) pension or special rate pension. I think that is a most generous response by the Government to the report.

Secondly, it has been a concern of the Committee that when a veteran is applying for a special rate pension or an intermediate rate pension often the board, whether it is the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, makes an assessment only on the day on which the veteran makes his application. An application may have been made two years prior to a board considering the matter and that two-year period has not been able to be considered, at least in the minds of some of the decision makers. I must admit that when I was on the board it was always my view that we could assess up to date. Nevertheless, the Government has recognised the possible problem here and has agreed with the Committee that, where a veteran makes application for a special rate of pension, where that rate is to be assessed the Board can consider the matter right up to the day of consideration. For instance, if a pensioner is nearing early retirement due to ill health he can place his application for TPI pension. If it is knocked back by the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans' Review Board seeks to review it some years later, the Board can assess all matters right up to date. Of course, if the TPI pension is granted then the grant will be made way back to the original date of application. Again, I think it is an excellent response by the Government to a real concern of the Committee.

The third area of concern by the Committee is that there are pensioners who after retirement are not only 100 per cent disabled, according to the general rate of pension, but extremely disabled. They may be, in a sense, 150 per cent or 200 per cent disabled but are unable to receive a TPI pension because they are past retirement age. I reiterate for the veteran community that the TPI pension has always been acknowledged as recompense for a person being unable to work. Nevertheless, the Government realises that there are people beyond retirement age who are severely disabled. The Committee recommended that there should be introduced a halfway house-that is, a rate of pension beyond the general rate but not the TPI. It also recommended that there should be an extreme disablement adjustment rate which should be set at 150 per cent of the general rate. Again, the Government has accepted that recommendation and I believe it is a very generous decision.

The fourth area of concern is the new guide to assessment of the rate of veterans' pensions. This guide was introduced some two years ago, from memory. There was some concern, mainly that the guide had been used to lower the assessment of veterans' incapacity. I reject that. Again, having worked on the Veterans' Review Board I can tell honourable members that under the old system where there was no guide, frequently the three members of the Board would get into a bidding situation. It was not unusual-and it was not with malintent-for the veterans' representative on the Board to suggest a fairly high rate of pension but for other members on the Board to recommend a lesser rate of pension. Inevitably there was a compromise. In other words, a bidding process went on. With the introduction of what we know as the guide to assessment of rates of veterans' pensions (GARP), there are now clear criteria by which we can make an assessment. So the bidding process is not nearly as important now. We can, with great finality, make a clear decision.

The other important aspect here, of course, is that decisions are comparable across the States. They do not depend on the composition of the Board or on practices of the Board that may have grown up in particular States. GARP has brought to the whole determining process a sense of fairness between the States and between all panels of the Board that sit around Australia. We have gone from a position of a bidding process, which was no way to conduct a review of the merits of a veteran's incapacity, to one where we have a guide that is acceptable to all. There were several criticisms of the way the guide assessed incapacity and the Government has responded by rewriting the guide. There now is what we call GARP 2, the new guide which has just been released.

I must say that I read a column by Ian Gollings, the Secretary of the Returned Services League, slating the Government for being a little tardy in not recognising the urgency of various matters in the veterans area and I found it somewhat negative and frankly uninspiring. The fact is that we received the report from the Committee in May and we have acted on the recommendations. Of some 58 recommendations, we have put 28 immediately into practice as of the last Budget, and have been outlining the five most important areas. The response has been swift and generous, and I want the veteran community to understand that. So much for the guide to the assessment of the rates of veterans' pensions.

Lastly, the determining system as it now stands has been in operation for only three years and the most important new element is the Veterans' Review Board. The Committee was concerned that, for instance, at the primary level of determination-the Repatriation Commission-there was a fear that delays in assessments could be further cut back. The Committee acknowledged that there had already been substantial cutbacks in delays. The queue of people waiting to receive their decision has been knocked down enormously in the past few years and the Committee was generous enough to indicate that.

Further, I might say that the Committee also sought at the Veterans' Review Board level the notion of a single member hearing, that is, rather than having three people on a panel, just have one. I must admit that, talking to veterans, they seem to have a fear of single member panels. I remind them that it was the Committee, and there were veterans on that Committee, which recommended single member panels. We found that the VRB has been using single member panels for 18 months or more and that has been a very useful method of cutting back the delays in hearings.

I end my contribution by saying that the veterans' community in Australia deserves this Government's support. We have listened to the Monitoring Committee and we have responded swiftly and generously.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mildren) —Is the motion seconded.

Mr Sciacca —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.