Senator BARTLETT (Leader of the Australian Democrats) (4:08 PM) —I was speaking to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 2003 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2003 prior to question time. I reiterate the Democrats' general support for the legislation as a significant improvement whilst noting that there are still areas where we believe more work could be done. We do welcome the government's recent announcement of several veterans initiatives, many of which the Democrats have long supported and called for, including indexing the TPI to male total average weekly earnings, providing rent assistance for war widows, improving care for some atomic veterans, increasing funeral benefits and exempting war disability pensions from social security income tests in recognition that these payments are compensation.

I trust the government's word that these recently announced increases in benefits to veterans, together with the bills before us, will rectify some parts of the situation that veterans have tried to have addressed for some time. It should be noted, however, that many of these anomalies are ones the government promised to examine and address prior to being elected the first time around, back in 1996. So it has been a long time coming for many of these areas.

No doubt all of us would like all wars to cease so that we no longer have veterans and people do not have to pay the price that they do for conflicts. But whilst we have troops who put themselves on the line to fight for our country, we do have a special obligation to ensure that we do not just pat them on the back when they come home, give them a nice medal and put them in the paper with a photo of them next the Prime Minister or the local member but also continue to support them and their families in the many years ahead, when oftentimes they will have direct consequences to deal with as a result of that service.

The collision and destruction of two Black Hawk helicopters back in 1996 resulted in the deaths of 18 members of the Australian Army and injuries ranging from minor to very serious for a further 12 members. There was a subsequent review—the Tanzer review—of the military compensation scheme, which recommended a single, self-contained scheme for peacetime service and the adoption of a new, integrated, military specific scheme for military compensation such as we see in this bill.

Notwithstanding that the Democrats for the most part support these bills, there are issues of some concern which we do acknowledge in terms of their impact on veterans. One of these is the distinction or the differential between warlike service and non-warlike service—peacetime service—and the effect of this on the amount of compensation payable to veterans and their surviving families. Other issues of concern include the obligation to undergo a rehabilitation program in specified instances; the linking of an ADF member's pay for compensation purposes to the rank at which he or she left the service, to the exclusion of probable subsequent promotions; and the fact that once again there is no provision in these bills for recognition of same-sex couples, a matter that the Democrats will seek to address at the committee stage of the debate.

The issue of differential service type was certainly the most contentious of all aspects discussed during the recent inquiry into these bills. It was raised in all submissions at public hearings, and a wide range of views were expressed. The divergence of opinion on the differential was most marked, however, with respect to the differential lump sum death benefit for widowed partners. It remains the fact, however, that when a serviceperson is killed their family pays a huge emotional price. Accordingly, the Democrats welcome the government amendments to this bill that will be put forward at the committee stage whereby the differential in war widows' benefits will be abolished. I note that the government has assured us that the scheme will pass the `Kylie Russell' test. If this scheme had been in place at the time Sergeant Andrew Russell—Australia's only casualty in Afghanistan—was killed in Afghanistan in 2002, his widow, Kylie Russell, would clearly have been financially better off.

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 the Senate will consider. 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 as their training is often more hazardous than some of the situations that relate to qualifying service.

The legislation is a significant step forward. As I have outlined, there are still some areas that the Democrats believe could do with attention. We will examine how the scheme operates in practice. We do have ongoing concerns that same-sex couples are still not recognised, particularly given that gay and lesbian people have been accepted into the Defence Force legally since 1992 and, unlike the Australian Federal Police or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Defence Force provides no entitlements for, or recognition of, their partners.

Our position is simple. All Defence Force personnel have the right to have their partner of choice recognised if they wish. These are people whom our government is quite willing to send overseas to engage in combat duties and yet their partners are in a situation where they are not entitled to any assistance if injury or death occurs to those service personnel. We have a group of service personnel who, purely because their partner is of the same sex, have lesser entitlements than other members of the Defence Force. That is not a satisfactory situation in this area, as it is not in many other aspects of Commonwealth law.

We accept, for the most part, the changes for the better that these bills bring and ultimately we support the overall improvement. We welcome the government's amendments to the differential lump sum benefit for widowed partners and we will seek to further improve this with our amendments. We also welcome the change to the review system overall so that one system of review will apply to all persons making claims under these bills. That should clearly lead to an improvement in clarity and efficiency. The end purpose of all this, of course, is to get better assistance for our veterans. They are a group to which—and this is something that cannot be said often enough—our community owes a special debt. Regardless of all the debates that we have about the commitment of our troops in particular circumstances, we, as a community, have an ongoing debt to those people who go where they are sent when their government instructs them. It is not possible to have a Defence Force operate in such a way that personnel can pick and choose when they go and serve; they have to be required to go whenever the government of the day sends them.

Whilst the Democrats have openly and strongly opposed the recent commitment of troops to Iraq and, indeed, we believe that we need to change the way that troops are committed so that the decision to commit troops is one that is made by the parliament rather than just the Prime Minister and cabinet, that in no way diminishes our support for the troops that fulfil their duty to our country. As I said in my contribution before question time, it is important now that our troops are committed in Iraq to recognise that they must follow through on the legal and moral obligation to assist in rebuilding Iraq after the conflict—not just in rebuilding the infrastructure but in putting an administration in place. That is something that all of us hope can be done as quickly as possible, but, unlike others, the Democrats have always recognised that we could not simply withdraw our troops straightaway and that they have an ongoing role to play.

Perhaps more importantly than that debate—which is much broader than this legislation and a very important debate—the key fact remains that, whenever those troops come home, they deserve more than just a welcome home parade and a medal. They deserve to know that any health consequences of their service will be properly dealt with through veterans' compensation and that they will get recognition of the special debt that we owe them as service personnel who have served their country. These bills, I am pleased to say, take a positive step in that direction.