Mrs GASH (10:08 AM) —First of all, I offer my congratulations to all concerned in the release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace, in particular to our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer.

The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 has been requested and approved by the bulk of the people to whom it applies. Usually it happens that people request legislative changes that they believe should apply to other people, but that is why it is so good working with veterans. The veterans I know are unassuming men and women who, whilst they are learning of their rights, only want that to which they are entitled. To illustrate my point: just last week I spoke to another veteran who was unhappy about the entitlement that someone else was getting, in his eyes, undeservedly. When I challenged him to give details, rather than talk in generalities he provided them within two days.

The story went like this: there was a serviceman who was married who later left his wife and entered a de facto relationship with another woman. After he died, his wife applied for and received the war widows pension. Unfortunately, she also died. Soon after, the woman from the de facto relationship changed her surname by deed poll to that of the serviceman. Six weeks later, she applied for and received the war widows pension and a gold card.

This is the kind of story that really outrages veterans. Benefits have been earned with blood and are not to be given or treated lightly. In fact, most of the work on behalf of veterans that comes into my electorate office consists of chasing up entitlements that have previously been unknown to them or for which they have never applied. Nine times out of 10, when asked why they had not applied earlier or why they had let their situation become so grim before asking if there was some possibility that they might have a little bit of help, the answer is, `Oh, there are so many people worse off than me and I don't want to take something away from anyone else,' or, `Other people probably needed it more than I did.' And isn't that interesting? The very people who gave the most for their country are unwilling to take away from it. Yet there are others who have no difficulty in working the system to take whatever they can get, whether they deserve it or not.

There are also people who have been allocated particular labels in the past which have stuck and which are, in a way, being used against them. This bill seeks to find a balance, because those on invalid service pensions really ought to, and should, be treated in that way, and those who are able to access other opportunities should be assisted to do so. Some may more appropriately be transferred to other avenues of financial support which allow and encourage the development of skills and perhaps a return to the work force.

This bill provides amendments in five major areas: the invalid service pension review; the extension of HomeFront; Home Support advances; the veterans' children education scheme; and the peacekeeping forces. There are several other minor amendments which decrease the inconsistencies and ambiguities in current legislation. This demonstrates the federal government's commitment to review legislation to ensure that it accurately reflects government policy.

Let me turn to the matter of determining eligibility for the invalid service pension. Service and veterans' groups have regularly expressed their disquiet to MPs, to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and to ministers about the ease with which some people seem to be getting the invalid service pension. On closer inspection, it became apparent that some people may have accessed this pension because of the lack of standardisation and objectivity in the criteria for applying the pension. This meant that, for some, this pension became a non-reviewable alternative to an unemployment benefit. As a result, the criteria used to access eligibility for the invalid service pension will now be standardised. They will also be aligned with Centrelink's criteria for accessing the permanent incapacity income support supplement to the disability support pension.

These criteria will then enable objective judgment of whether a veteran is permanently incapacitated and therefore eligible for the invalid service pension. This amendment will require a veteran to accrue 40 impairment points as set out in the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions, better known as GARP. Who would have thought that we would ever have legislation suggesting `the world according to GARP'! The veteran's permanent incapacity must be of such a nature that it prevents him or her from working more than eight hours a week permanently.

At this point, I hasten to add that totally and permanently incapacitated, or TPI, pensioners will not be reviewed. Veterans aged over 57 on 1 January 2000 will also not be reviewed. Veterans who already have 40 GARP points and who are unable to work more than eight hours a week will also not be reviewed. This is a matter of credibility, and most veterans contacted are pleased that these amendments will take place.

As was alluded to earlier, some veterans have been labelled wrongly, in that they can work, and it is appropriate that they do so. In these instances, it is more equitable that they be moved to income support programs which allow them access to training and vocational placement and opportunities. The review applies to 1,780 veterans, which is less than 15 per cent of invalid service pensioners, and it is totally supported by them.

HomeFront is the falls and accident prevention program that currently is offered only to war widows and veterans with a gold card. Through this bill, the federal government is extending the scheme to all veterans who are eligible for treatment from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This scheme is excellent, and any fall or accident prevented saves major costs—costs in terms of reduced mobility, families having to increase their physical support of the injured, loss of confidence and independence, not to mention any medical and hospital costs.

Under the HomeFront Program, people's homes are inspected for any potential gaps in their safety. You know the kind of hidden and familiar traps that I mean—that second bottom step that has been loose for years, that little ripple in the carpet near the piano, the verandah rail that is a bit wobbly, or that patch of lino that cracked after the house settled in the big drought. Those are the things that we walk under, past or over on a daily basis and we even regularly think to ourselves, `Yes, we must fix that one day.' These are the very things that can lead to simple accidents in the home that can have such horrific consequences.

Most of us know of someone who in their later years had a fall, broke a leg or a hip, spent a long time in hospital, came out and probably had another fall while trying to cope with their now weaker limbs and lack of trust in their body. Generally, the story goes that another even longer stay in hospital sees them emerge in a much debilitated state, not through the lack of care in the hospital but because of the enforced lack of movement and the associated consequences for independence. The old adage is: they were just never the same, they never came good again, or they died soon after coming home. If the extension of the HomeFront Program saves just one of the those accidents, it will all have been worth it.

This program does not end with the free home assessment. Financial assistance is also available to solve those minor potential safety problems. Up to $150 in any one calendar year is available towards the cost of recommended safety appliances and items such as grab rails or non-slip treatment of floor services. This financial assistance will go directly to the qualified contractor who is performing the work, so there is a further shell of protection for veterans built into this program. It ensures that the work is necessary and recommended by the assessor; it is performed by a qualified tradesman; the cost of the improvements is capped in many instances by the level of assistance, making it unattractive for the get-rich-quick con merchants; as things become worn or pose a risk they can be fixed each year; and veterans do not have to go to their bank or their cash box to pay the tradesman, thereby opening themselves to possible further risks. As I said earlier, the government will provide the assistance direct to the person or company providing this service.

The HomeFront Program in no way limits the services and assistance available through the Rehabilitation Appliances Program. This program ensures veterans have the choice to remain at home with dignity whilst ever they choose to do so. The Home Support advance fits hand in glove with the HomeFront Program. If a veteran lives in and owns his or her home and that home requires some major maintenance, safety or security improvements, they will be able to apply for assistance to have that work carried out by a qualified tradesperson. This assistance takes the form of interest subsidies on a loan of up to $10,000 in partnership with Westpac, which will provide the loan using all the normal commercial contracts and mortgage documents. Along with the interest subsidies, eligible veterans will also be able to access defence service home insurance. These initiatives are particularly suitable in this the International Year of the Older Person.

The next item for amendment by this bill is the Veterans' Children Education Scheme. Again, this amendment highlights the government's determination to identify and remove anomalies in veterans' entitlements. This bill will extend eligibility for the benefits available under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme to those children of veterans receiving extreme disability adjustment. This measure will no doubt be fully supported by the opposition which sought to introduce it in 1993. However, when other matters prevented the bill from passing both houses, the opposition never completed the legislation they had proposed to fix the problem. This is sad because it was the current opposition that created the anomaly in the first place by extending eligibility for the Veterans' Children Education Scheme only to children of deceased veterans. Consequently, for years and years, children of some of the most severely incapacitated veterans could not receive the benefits of this assistance until their parent was dead.

The last major amendment in this bill allows the minister to declare a force engaged in keeping the peace as a peacekeeping force for the purposes of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This simply means that the government can respond more quickly through streamlined processes. This amendment will create certainty, especially for those personnel who may not form part of the Australian defence forces, yet are involved in a peacekeeping force which may or may not involve the ADF. One of the really good things about this bill is that it shows just how serious this government is when it comes to responding to veterans' concerns.

Another area in which we have taken decisive action is in the provision of Viagra under certain war related circumstances. Previously, even in compensation claims, several governments, through the Department of Veterans' Affairs and its various tribunals, had basically treated veterans' sexual difficulties in the same context as those suffering the onset of old age. We all know that such difficulties can be caused by a multitude of events, from psychological to physical. Previously veterans had been treated as a group. Here was an issue that could only be described as individual, requiring determination on an individual case basis.

This government moved quickly to ensure that this issue could be dealt with in the way that veterans had asked. The funny thing is that veterans, contrary to popular belief and humour, are not rushing to queue for Viagra, but they are coming into the electorate office to say how much they appreciate being given the choice. These and other veterans are also telling me how happy they are with this government for listening to their concerns and for treating them as humans rather than some massed amoebic blob of mucous on the outer edge of life. This has been the concern for our veterans, that they have not been treated with the respect that they have surely earned.

The Far East Strategic Reserve is another avenue through which this government is demonstrating its responsiveness to the veterans' requests. Again, veterans have carefully prepared, documented, submitted and argued a case for suitable recognition of services provided at the time in good faith. Again, this government is responding with a fair and balanced process which is, of course, this review. This is just another string to the bow of mutual obligation for in government, too, with rights come responsibilities, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the rights of veterans are accorded. It is their responsibility to communicate with us so that we might use our right to introduce such appropriate and jointly sponsored legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.