Mr EDWARDS (10:21 AM) —I want to start by offering my congratulations to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for his decision in ensuring that those six diggers, about whom he knows so much, will now receive the medals to which they were justly entitled. Having said that, I am sorry on behalf of those veterans that this issue took so long to resolve. I have just one other little criticism, which I am sure the minister will not take too much to heart: I thought it would have been delightful if that decision could have been made on Vietnam Veterans Day rather than at the RSL Congress yesterday. But, having said that, I do not want to appear petty. The right thing has been done; it has taken a long time, and, regardless of how anyone looks at this in the future, the important fact is that now it has been established that for the level of bravery about which we were talking, there is no discrimination, no difference between an officer and a person from other ranks. For the same level of bravery they are entitled to the same level of award, and that important principle has been established. I support a number of initiatives in this bill. Some initiatives that I have concerns about I will mention, but I will not go into lengthy debate because, as the member for Cunningham has said, this bill will go to a Senate standing committee and the veteran community will have the opportunity to comment on the bill and on the impact that the bill will have on veterans.

I think the veteran community will support those aspects of the bill dealing with the education scheme for veterans' children, the peacekeeping forces, and those amendments relating to home support advances and the treatment of veterans. I do however want to ask the minister what provisions within the department will be taken to ensure that under the HomeFront program sufficient numbers of trained assessors will be available to visit homes and identify hazards in and around homes? As well as identifying their needs, what provisions will be made to help veterans to identify community support services that they may need to link into in order to gain assistance to remain living independently in their own homes? I asked the question because it is obvious that if this service is to be extended to an additional 63,000 veterans, then the existing assessors, who, I understand, are already under the pump, will be hard-pressed to absorb that additional workload and to do it within a reasonable time.

I also want to know whether the $150 that is to be made available will be adjusted for GST. We all know that home improvements can be a fairly expensive avenue of expenditure and any additional money can make that bit of difference. It is a good initiative if used advantageously for veterans. If, however, it is going to be used simply as aged care on the cheap instead of as an alternative to institutionalised care, then it will not help veterans. I guess time will tell how effective this is going to be. But, as I said, I think it is a good initiative.

The other matter about which I have some concerns relates to changes to the invalidity service pension assessment. Why are we putting veterans through the process of transferring responsibility from the Department of Veterans' Affairs to Centrelink? I want to know whether this is the start of the Department of Veterans' Affairs being dismantled and responsibility for veterans going to Centrelink. I know this is a concern that many veterans and many veterans organisations have. It is a concern that is even more highlighted when we have a government which seems determined to bow down to the economic rationalists and to pursue this process of privatisation.

This bill is about saving the department money at the expense of veterans. The minister says that approximately 13 per cent of veterans will be retested, and retested under these more stringent GARP arrangements. He also says that savings of some $6 million will eventually result. What concerns many veterans is that, if they are forced off the service pension and if they are pushed over into Centrelink, any pension that they receive from Centrelink will be means and asset tested. Of course, any disability pension that they receive through the Department of Veterans' Affairs will become part of that assessment.

It needs to be said that a number of these veterans are really battlers. They are family people. They do not have a lot of excess money. In some circumstances, the things that we are talking about here today will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. This ultimate saving of some $6 million that the minister talks about is going to be made at the expense of many of these battling veterans.

I know that there is a right of appeal. I would be appreciative if the minister could advise the committee what that appeal process will be. I want to talk about appeals a bit further down the track, but I would appreciate it if he could put on the record what the appeal process will be. It seems to me that we will be putting many veterans through an unnecessary process, given that no doubt many of them will have the decision overturned when they do appeal if they are forced off the ISP.

Take the case of a veteran aged 56. If, for instance, a veteran of this age is forced off the service pension, then in four years time that veteran will be back on a service pension with eligibility established through age. Why, if that is going to be the outcome, has the government not simply introduced a grandfather clause?

The minister knows that if his department have suspicions that a veteran who has a service pension is not dinkum or that circumstances have changed, then they can take remedial action under current legislation, so why this whole process here? Why not have a grandfather clause and simply start a new policy for new applicants as from, say, 1 January 2000 and leave current service pensioners alone in the knowledge, as I have said, that your department has existing powers to deal with that small percentage of veterans who may have snuck through the system. I ask the minister again: are we starting on the journey of beginning to dismantle the Department of Veterans' Affairs and transfer responsibility for veterans over to Centrelink? I do not want to comment any more on the details of the bill. The veteran community will have the opportunity to make comment when we go through the public process in the Senate and I know that there are many veterans and organisations that are going to take the opportunity to do that.

I spoke earlier about the appeals system. One of the things that need to be said about the veteran community is that veterans receive great support through the various organisations that work on a volunteer basis to assist them to lodge claims and appeals. I think they do a great job. I had the opportunity to be closely involved with the services assistance program which operates out of the Returned Services League premises in Perth. People like Doug Rasmussen, Ross O'Connor and Graham Bertollini put an immense amount of good work on a volunteer basis into assisting their fellow veterans and this is of great assistance to them and to the department. I also want to compliment the Vietnam Veterans' Federation of which I am a member, and particularly compliment Tim McCombe and his team for the great work that they do on behalf of veterans. I know in some sections of government that the Vietnam Veterans' Federation are not all that popular. They are not all that popular because they have one thing in mind: above all else, to look after the welfare and the interests of veterans. They do not pay any particular political favour to either side of politics; they just simply get on with the job of trying to look after veterans. They do a great job and it is a bit sad that sometimes they do not receive the support or the avenues of access through the department or to the minister that perhaps they should receive.

I just want to comment on this issue of legal aid because it is an important one. A letter that I received from the Vietnam Veterans' Federation earlier this year states:

In 1997, arrangements for veterans' Legal Aid funding changed.

No longer is there is a separate Commonwealth fund for veterans' Legal Aid from which State Legal Aid Offices seek reimbursement.

Now

this veterans' fund is pooled with funds for other matters in the Commonwealth jurisdiction such as family law, immigration and customs and given to State Legal Aid Offices to administer.

Before the change, in the Federation's experience, all or almost all reasonable applications for Legal Aid were granted. The matter was not an issue. Since the change, the Federation is experiencing and hearing about applications with obvious merit being denied. In addition, since the 1997 changes, issues of inadequate funding for medical reports and for various stages of the preparation and presentation of appeals have arisen.

Take for instance the Ray Kelly case. He was in dispute with the Repatriation Commission over a question of eligible service. His case was obviously a good one. He was refused Legal Aid. He was so confident his case was a good one he paid for its running himself. He won easily, as a reading of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision will attest. He won, but Ray Kelly is out of pocket some $9,000. It is our experience that such a case would never have been refused legal aid prior to the 1997 changes.

Then take the case of the veteran whose disability was the subject of a Statement of Principle change during the appeals process. He was refused funds for another medical report to address the Statement of Principle changes.

Take also the practice of allowing medical reports for only the particular disability in question, even though the Administrative Appeals Tribunal must do its assessment on the effect of all the veterans' accepting disabilities.

Take, too, the new prohibition on veterans being represented by a solicitor and barrister.

And so on.

The letter goes on:

. . . there is considerable disquiet about the quality of decisions being made by Repatriation Commission delegates. Big numbers of appeals and high rates of success in those appeals suggest that the disquiet is justified. And no end is in sight to this disquiet with the Minister's reorganisation of his Department installing quite junior staff as determining officers who, to make matters worse, have, in some offices, a high turnover rate.

The Repatriation Commission is embarrassed about this. It would obviously like to see fewer appeals against its decision succeed . . .

And then there is the matter of the interpretation of the law.

Since 1943, and certainly since 1977, veterans' organisations have differed markedly from the Repatriation Commission in their interpretation of Repatriation law. And the veterans' organisations have been proven to be right in every significant court case dealing with the law's interpretation. And the Repatriation Commission's imposition of unduly harsh interpretations of Repatriation law continue to the present time. In the recent Deledio case, the Repatriation Commission argued that it should impose a `balance of probabilities' standard of proof on its decision making process. This was an astounding view to argue as both the politicians making the law and the text of the law itself clearly stated that test to be `reasonable hypothesis'. More recently, the Repatriation Commission's supported the Specialist Medical Review Council in applying the scientific standard of proof to its decision making. Happily, the New South Wales Supreme Court agreed with veterans that this was far from what was intended by the Parliament and that the correct test was again, `reasonable hypothesis.

The issue of legal aid is an important one, as we see in the case of Ray Kelly. Here is a bloke who was so confident that he was going to win, but was forced into a situation where he had to front up and hit his own kick to the tune of nine grand. That is simply unacceptable. If this veteran had not been able to have access to that money, then a great injustice might well have been done.

I wonder how many veterans there are out there in the community who do not have the cash and who have to withdraw from the appeal process simply because they cannot fund it. That is why I made mention of the services assistance program, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and, of course, the RSL and the many volunteers in the various branches of the RSL around Australia who do a great job in supporting and assisting other veterans to get justice and to have their day in court.

I will conclude by asking the minister if he can advise the committee of the current status of the review into the health and wellbeing of Gulf War veterans. This was an issue some time ago. I know the minister was interviewed by Channel 9, I think on A Current Affair, and at the end of that program the channel indicated that the minister had advised it that a review was indeed being put into place. I would be grateful if the minister could advise the committee of the current status of that review. How far down the track is it; how many veterans have been called in; how many veterans have been tested and how long will the process of that investigation take; and how long will it be before some of these veterans and their families, who have very serious concerns about their health and wellbeing, know the outcome of that inquiry?

Having made those few comments, I compliment the minister again on the decision about the medals and I want to say there are some good points in this legislation. Members of the veteran community themselves will have the opportunity to put before the committee any concerns that they have, and ultimately, I guess, we will have the opportunity to make our decision as to how strongly we support or oppose this legislation, dependent upon the outcome of that review.