Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.50 p.m.) —Firstly, can I thank the shadow minister and the member for Maribyrnong (Mr Sercombe) for their contributions to this debate. It is certainly pleasing to see members of the opposition taking an interest in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio.

Can I just say at the outset that we often get calls that we are not doing enough for veterans. That is so for both sides of the parliament as the opposition did so when in government. I just remind us all in this committee here this morning that we do appropriate almost $6.4 billion to care for our veteran community, our war widows and some dependants of veterans. It is important that we do focus on that fact from time to time. The government does see this very much as a bipartisan portfolio and we do give thanks for the shadow minister's comments in that area as well as some areas that he has flagged that he has some concerns in. It is important that we do acknowledge that all governments have tried as hard as they can to make sure they meet as many of the needs of our veteran community as possible. Given the constraints of budgets from time to time, it is not possible to extend some areas as far as perhaps we would like.

I just touch on the issue of some outsourcing that has been going on in the department. The shadow minister raised this issue and referred to some of the comments by the secretary in Senate estimates. I would remind the opposition, when they look at this outsourcing, of the numbers of staff that were in the department when they came to government. Admittedly, at the time they came to government, the ownership of all repatriation hospitals was with the Commonwealth.

During their time in government, we saw the staff of the Department of Veterans' Affairs fall from something like 13,000 down to 3,400 or thereabouts. The large numbers of reductions in staffing certainly were associated with the privatisation of those repatriation hospitals which we in opposition supported. I would remind the opposition, when they talk about the outsourcing of some activities of the department today, to just look at what they did when they were in government. I also remind them that we supported them in that process.

It is important that we do look at the efficiency of the department, as you should look at the efficiency of government. Also, I am sure every business person in this nation would be aware of the need to look at the efficiency of their business operation. Through running an efficient department and making savings, we have been able to deliver in this budget an extension of benefits to veterans who were not previously entitled to them. I will refer to a couple of those.

The member for Maribyrnong raised the issue of the Far East Strategic Reserve in relation to the Malaysian emergency. I would refer him to our press release. If he has not already read it, I would commend it to him because we picked that up in the budget. We conducted a review of the anomalies we spoke out about prior to the election. We not only picked up the Far East Strategic Reserve, we picked up 11 other areas of anomalies.

Mr Sercombe —Including service pensions?

Mr BRUCE SCOTT —We picked up 11 other areas of anomalies. I will just read these for the benefit of the member. They include HMAS Vampire and HMAS Quickmatch in relation to service in Vietnam prior to 1962. We also picked up the embassy guard with the Australian embassy in Saigon after our withdrawal there. We picked up the naval service people that you refer to. We have picked up the BCOF people—the British occupation forces in Japan. We have picked up 12 other areas of anomalies that were previously not acknowledged as service. That needs to be acknowledged and recognised.

Those people will be eligible for a disability payment through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. They will also be eligible for health treatment for war related injuries that may have been inflicted during that service in those previously unrecognised areas of service. (Extension of time granted) I will now deal with the area of panel diagnosis that was touched on by the shadow minister.

I can assure him that on this issue there will be no throwaway lines from this minister and, I would hope, from anyone in the parliament, because it is a very serious issue and one that is acknowledged by us and has been acknowledged by previous ministers and by previous governments. It is a serious issue. We want to make sure that, through a better approach to this, we can have confidence in the diagnosis of the psychological disorder.

Members may not be aware, but last year we brought Professor Arieh Shalev out here from Israel. He is a world renowned expert in the area of diagnosis of PTSD. He spoke at conferences all around this nation, including to our serving defence forces. Currently, we are circulating an options paper. We are having discussions with the ex-service community, including the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia and the Vietnam Veterans' Federation of Australia. We are working very closely with them. This options paper will be circulated before any final process is agreed to.

Far from rushing into this issue, we have identified that we need to have confidence in the process. Veterans themselves want to have confidence in the diagnosis. I think there are as many who do not get diagnosed with PTSD who feel they should, as there are those who do get diagnosed. We need to make sure that we all have confidence in the diagnostic process.

I would also point out that we have very real concerns about the health of Vietnam veterans. We have acknowledged that with the release of the mortality study of Vietnam veterans. Only recently, we circulated a questionnaire on health to over 53,000 Vietnam veterans around Australia. That questionnaire was drawn up with the help of Vietnam veterans' associations. It includes questions about their lifestyle, their children and their relationship within their marriage. It is an important questionnaire, and it is a further demonstration of our commitment to assist Vietnam veterans, to make sure that we are targeting their needs as well as possible and that we are not leaving them feeling left out.

I also point out that, for the very first time, we will be asking female veterans who served in Vietnam in any capacity, for one day or more from 1962 to 1973—and we have identified 484 of them—to also participate in that questionnaire. I hope that wherever they go members of the opposition continue to urge Vietnam veterans to fill out that questionnaire—they have until 30 June to complete it.

In relation to the Veterans' Review Board and the appeal process, let me assure the shadow minister and the opposition that we take our responsibility in this area very seriously. Our appointment of Brigadier Bill Rolfe to the principal member's position on the Veterans' Review Board shows our commitment to putting people in the position who understand the culture of the people for whom they have responsibility in relation to reviews of claims that have been rejected by the department.

Brigadier Bill Rolfe was a Vietnam veteran who served back here in Australia after his service in Vietnam. I will remind people that, as a soldier in Vietnam, he was wounded and lost both legs. If ever there was anyone who could understand the culture of Vietnam veterans, it would be Brigadier Rolfe. His appointment is another demonstration that, when it comes to dealing with veterans issues, we are serious about having people who understand the people for whom they have responsibility in terms of those processes of review.

My time is short, and I want to wrap this up. There were other issues raised, but I thank the opposition for their bipartisan support. (Time expired)