PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr BIRRELL (Nicholls) (17:25): I thoroughly endorse this motion moved by the member for Cowper, and it's my pleasure to second the motion. It is not a spurious— An honourable member interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Aldred ): The member is being disorderly by speaking out of his seat. Mr BIRRELL: It is not a spurious motion, and we are not the ones who have caused the concerns.
We did not put this policy in. The coalition didn't put this policy in. Labor has put a $5,000 cap on allied health care.
That's what we should be talking about—how that works. Why is the cap there? Why are veterans who are suffering from PTSD, service related injuries and requiring ongoing rehabilitation being hit with a limit of $5,000 in a matter of months?
That is the point, not the back and forth between personalities on this. The important thing is that there are people in our communities who are concerned. They're not concerned because we're whipping up fear; they're concerned because of the policy.
It is the government's job to explain the policy, and they have not done so yet. In my electorate, the president of Seymour RSL, Matt McLaughlin, wrote to me and said: Many veterans rely heavily on ongoing allied health services—such as physiotherapy, psychology, occupational therapy, and exercise physiology—to manage service-related injuries and long-term health conditions.
For a significant number, these needs are complex and chronic. A capped annual limit is unlikely to reflect the real cost of maintaining their health, function, and quality of life. I'm not making that up.
That is from a person in my electorate who served this country who's very concerned. The same concern has been widely expressed within the veteran community. The government has confirmed that DVA will fund allied services above the $5,000 cap where there is a valid clinical need.
But there are no details on this. How will that process work? What is the definition of 'valid clinical needs'?
How are they going to apply for these claims? How will they be considered? How will DVA assess their claims?
These are not unreasonable questions for the opposition to ask. The government's saying, 'Trust us.' Well, we've just had a budget where it's been shown that we can't trust them. Veterans don't know what the process for seeking treatment and supports above the $5,000 cap will be.
It could be as simple as a letter from their GP, but it could be a complex and contestable process. In effect, it could force veterans with an ongoing condition to prove it again and again—every 12 months—just to justify spending above $5,000. I quote again from Matt McLaughlin, president of Seymour RSL: Veterans should not be placed in a position where financial limits determine access to clinically necessary care, particularly when that care relates directly to injuries sustained through service.
Our veterans committed to serve our country and I honour those—including those opposite—who have done so. In return, a grateful nation has always committed to looking after those veterans and their families. I condemn the defunding and discontinuation of veteran support and education programs which have provided essential services including mental health support.
What this debate in the Federation Chamber should be about—again I commend the member for Cowper for bringing it on—is how this is going to work so that the veterans who need that care, often well above $5,000 in value, are going to get it. It's the government's job to go and explain how that process works, to work out if there are any gaps in that process and to make sure that our veterans don't have to go through the bureaucratic nightmare and all the health assessments and everything to get above $5,000.
If it works like that, I'll come in here and congratulate you. I worry that it's not going to work like that, and I call on this government to properly fund services and programs to ensure veterans and their families receive the support, respect and care they deserve. We're coming in here to ask questions and stand up for them.
The discussion should be: 'This is how it's going to work. Is it going to make life easier or harder for them?' They did a lot of hard things for this country. Not capping their entitlements and making it more difficult for them to get the service and the care they need is the least we can do.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Aldred ): Before I call the next member, I remind all members that it is highly disorderly to make interjections while out of your seat.