BUSINESS

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Leader of the House) (12:47): I'll deal with a few issues. I'll deal with the issue in substance that the members have just referred to with particular respect for the member for Herbert for the incorporation of his extraordinary willingness to serve this country and the way that he has framed the discussion in those terms.

If I can, on a tiny side note before I get into the substance—there was mention of Billy Hughes as a 'Labor prime minister'. Realistically, Billy Hughes ended up in every party except the party of the previous speaker. In answering the question 'why was the country party the only party you never joined?' his response was, 'You have to draw the line somewhere.' I only mention that because Billy Hughes was raised as if he was somehow a loyal Labor identity.

He had an interesting time here. There is one other thing I would like to say, given that we are talking about veterans, before I get to the substance of the direct issue that's contained within the Senate amendment to a largely unrelated bill on what's been referred to in the speeches. A lot of this debate goes to the issues of people in this House and throughout all of Australia wanting to find the best way to show respect to our veterans.

It's the first time I've had the chance in front of a microphone to express the level of solidarity that exists from every member of this parliament with the member for Canning and the horrific allegations that were made against him by a member of the other place. As Minister for Home Affairs, I work with people who wear our uniform. Obviously people think of Border Force, but the Commander of Operation Sovereign Borders is a member of the Navy, and the cybersecurity coordinator is a uniformed member of the Army, Lieutenant General Michelle McGuinness.

We all talk about ourselves being in public service, and we are. But what people who wear the uniform and put themselves in harm's way do is beyond our level of public service—and so far beyond. The concept that anyone with the opportunities that we have, as civilian members of parliament, could think that somehow it is okay to use the word 'traitor' against somebody who has worn our uniform—who has decided that, in the interests of public service, they were so committed as to be willing to put their life at risk—should be beneath anyone elected to this place.

I respect that we're here for a different issue, but I think most of us, if we get the opportunity, want to be able to make clear just how horrific that is. The member for Canning has been the shadow against me. We have no end of disagreements.

But there will be never a moment where I or any decent Australian will have anything but the deepest respect for his service. Allow me then to go to the issue that's before us. First of all, the concept of there being a limitation on services to veterans before they have to go back and get a new referral is actually not a new concept.

At the moment, the concept of having to go back to get a new referral is done in terms of number of visits. The proposal that the minister has been advancing is that, instead of it being done by number of visits, it would be done through an amount of money—a cost. The number of visits at the moment is 12, and after 12 visits somebody, if there is a further clinical need, goes back for a further referral.

The proposal, which the government is continuing consultation on, is that another referral would be required after a $5,000 review point. The concept which has garnered a lot of public discussion is that having to go back for a further referral is something new. It is not.

At the moment, it's based on number of visits, and the proposal for the minister is that, instead of it being 12 visits, if there was a further clinical need beyond $5,000, then another referral would be required. I respect the concept is out there, as it is in much of the public discussion, that there is a cap being introduced for the first time. There's anxiety that comes with that.

But I just want to deal with both of those concepts. There is already a point at which a further referral is required, and it's based on the number of visits, not on the quantum of money. To have to go back to make sure that a further referral is given is in no way new.

The second argument that's been put out there is that, in some way, the government is trying to save money with respect to veterans. Can I just say, the government's increased funding for veterans is in the order of $16 billion. Now, I'm not going to go through the different recommendations and the state of delays in dealing with veterans' entitlements when we came to office in any level of detail.

But let me say, you don't save money by spending $16 billion extra. The concept that the government is somehow trying to save money is not accurate. The concept that there is not already a point at which someone has to go back for a further referral is not accurate.

If the argument from those opposite is that we are better off with a number of visits being the point of referral, rather than the dollar value, then that's a policy argument to have, and I respect that. But I don't think either conclusion is necessarily or fairly framed as somehow being disrespectful to veterans. One is based, as the current system is, on the number of visits being 12.

The other is based on the total cost of the referral over time then reaching $5,000. In each case, at the moment, when someone reaches 12 visits, they go and get a further referral, and they get more care as is required. That process, if someone were to hit the $5,000, would be the same.

You'd get the further referral, and, on getting the further referral, more care is made available. The government has been delivering the services and supports that the veteran community not only needs but deserves. Since day one, we have worked to improve the lives of defence personnel.

We've worked to improve the lives of veterans. We've worked to improve the lives of their families in Australia with significant funding increases for the simple reason that this not only was overdue but is what veterans deserve. The state of veterans support funding when we came to government required that we provide the extra funding.

For anyone who looks at budgets, $16 billion is not a small amount, but can I say we don't hesitate in providing the extra funding for veterans. No amount of funding ever matches the extraordinary sacrifice that they have been willing to make for all of us. As a direct result of this government's additional DVA staff in the 2022-23 budget, we cleared the backlog that we had inherited.

The backlog meant not the situation we're talking about at the moment, where someone would have to go back to a referral. A backlog meant: Was someone even getting the care to start? Did they even had the approval to start?

So that's what we've been reforming to be able to fix, and it did need to be fixed. The government has continued to properly resource DVA so the funding for health care, the funding for support and the compensation that veterans need and deserve can get to them faster. The payment changes we've made have been the most significant payment increase for the allied health services that are provided to veterans in 20 years.

The increase in fees paid to providers will expand the network of allied health professionals available to veterans. One of the challenges, of course, was: even after approval, could you find someone to give the care? Unless the expansion of funding for the services was provided, you had the delay.

Then, after the approval, you had the search, and you still had those challenges. Against all of this, we just need to be aware that throwing allegations around, claiming that anyone in this parliament doesn't care about veterans, sends a message which I don't think anyone should send. For all of us, while we work out policy differences, the unity of this place in our commitment and respect for people who've worn our uniform should be a unity that we never put at risk.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ): The time for this debate has expired. The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.