BUSINESS

Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) (09:16): I don't think any of us are going to take lectures from that side of the House. When we came to government, there were veterans languishing, waiting to get access to their entitlements, because you had a deliberate budget policy— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Hang on a second.

I'll interrupt the minister for a moment. We're not going to have this non-stop yelling. Both the member for Riverina and the mover of the motion were given the respect to be heard when they did that.

We're going to have the same respect shown to this minister. We're not going to have everyone just simply yelling. I know this is an important issue, but we're just going to hear the minister.

She has the right to raise her views in this chamber just as much as anyone else does. Ms CATHERINE KING: Those opposite had a deliberate policy—a budget strategy—of deliberately having people wait and languish on the waiting list to have their veterans assessed. We had to put on extra staff into Veterans' Affairs, at a cost of billions of dollars, to actually get people to process veterans claims so they could get access to their basic entitlements.

That is what happened under that government. You deliberately had people languishing on the waiting list, trying to get actually assessed. That is what happened under you.

We have increased funding into Veterans' Affairs by $16 billion. We now have veterans, today, who were sitting and waiting for years to have their claim assessed, now being able to access those entitlements. We are proud of the work the minister did to actually get that happening.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, frankly, for having let thousands and thousands of veterans down by not actually having their claims assessed—years waiting on the list before they could actually get any entitlements at all. That's what happened, and it was a deliberate budget strategy on behalf of those opposite to have those people waiting for that length of time for their entitlements.

The veteran community knows that. They know, absolutely, that they are now seeing claims processed much faster and that more people are getting access to the entitlements to which they were entitled. That is really what had happened under the previous government.

Obviously, we understand that there has been concern expressed by the veteran community around the issue of the $5,000 threshold. We understand that. We've consulted.

We've listened to people, and we've now made the statement today that we are withdrawing that threshold. But let's look at the issue that we're trying to address here. It's that veterans are struggling to get access to the allied health professionals that they need because the rates of pay for the allied health professionals have not been keeping up.

There are many allied health professionals across the community who are not servicing veterans today. We can't get access to those allied health services in the first place. What we've been trying to do through the changes is increase the fees that the government pays for allied health professionals to make sure that they actually are servicing our veteran community and make sure that they are actually available for our veterans as part of their assessment package.

That's what we've been trying to do and the minister is trying to do, and I don't think any of us make any apologies for trying to make sure that our veterans actually have access not only to their pensions—which they didn't have under the previous government, because they had a deliberate budget strategy to make sure that that didn't occur. There were thousands and thousands of people waiting for their claims to be assessed, languishing on the waiting list, having no idea whether they would get that through or not.

I don't think that we should have lectures from those opposite that somehow or other that they actually had supported veterans through that period. There were thousands of people languishing on the waiting list. We have a deep and abiding respect for our veterans.

There are members on both sides of this chamber who have served in the ADF. I don't need to have threats from you, those opposite. I don't need to have threats from those men opposite saying, 'I'll come into your electorate and I'll show you.' I don't need blokes saying that to me.

I'm very happy. I talk to my RSL. I go to the RSL all the time.

I don't need threats. I don't need men threatening me in this chamber saying, 'I'll march down to your electorate, and we'll tell you.' That's what you've been doing. Oh, here's a numpty.

The SPEAKER: Order, the member— Mr Caldwell: You might want to withdraw that. Ms CATHERINE KING: [inaudible] that word. Look it up.

The SPEAKER: The member for Forrest on a point of order? Mr Small: Indeed. We're very clear about standing order 64 and directing comments through the chair.

I would ask the minister to withdraw the unparliamentary term which she used to describe me just now. Ms CATHERINE KING: [inaudible] look it up. Do you know what it means?

The SPEAKER: I didn't hear the word. I don't want the word repeated. The member for Forrest has raised a point of order.

I'll ask the minister to direct her remarks through the chair and to refrain from the term 'you'. And if the minister has used an unparliamentary remark, I'll ask her to withdraw. I did so yesterday, and there wasn't one made.

It's up to the minister. Ms CATHERINE KING: I withdraw. The SPEAKER: I thank the minister, and the minister may continue.

I'd like some silence, particularly from people who are interjecting not from their seats. Ms CATHERINE KING: Again, as I say, this government is very proud of the work of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in making sure that veterans have had access to a veteran's pension—something that did not happen under those opposite with thousands languishing on the waiting list to actually get their claims assessed in time.

That is what actually happened under those opposite. There has been $16 billion extra in funding from this government into veterans' payments directly making sure that veterans have access to the claims that they are entitled to. There was a deliberate strategy under the previous government of saving money by delaying the claim processing.

That is what you did. In fact, you had a minister for veterans' affairs resign because of it. He went out and gave a press conference.

He said he was unable, through the ERC process, to get the support and the funding that he needed. That is the legacy of those opposite. Our minister for veterans' affairs—we are processing people more quickly.

People are getting access to the pensions that they are entitled to under this government. As I said, we have a deep respect for veterans who have served and continue to serve this country. We are proud of the significant investments, including in this budget, of additional money for veterans directly for the services that they need.

We are very proud of the work that the minister has done to secure that funding. Obviously, we understand that the proposal around the $5,000 threshold has caused concern for the veterans community. We have responded to that.

Opposition members interjecting— Ms CATHERINE KING: Instead of sitting there interjecting—you were heard mostly in silence; I do acknowledge I interjected a couple of times, but I've had a wall of noise coming at me from those opposite. This minister has done work to make sure that we responded to the royal commission. We are working every day to actually get those recommendations done.

We are increasing the amount of staff within veterans affairs to process claims so that veterans can get access to their payments more quickly and there is $16 billion of additional money that has gone into veterans payments. All of that—all of that—is a legacy that we are proud of on this side. And we are proud that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has delivered that.

We understand, as I said, that the issue of the threshold has caused concern in the veteran community, and we have made the announcement today. We've been consulting on the measure, and we've listened, and that threshold has been paused— An opposition member: Paused! Ms CATHERINE KING: has been withdrawn.

So, as I say, we're not going to take lectures from the people opposite, who left thousands and thousands of veterans languishing on the waiting list for years trying to get their claims assessed, as though somehow they are now holier than thou and the only people who support veterans. Well, they didn't demonstrate it in government. They had a veterans affairs minister resign from their cabinet—resign because of the lack of support that their government showed to veterans.

He stood down and said that he could no longer be part of a government that did not support veterans. He then actually resigned from the political party because it clearly was a party that did not support veterans. We're not going to take lectures from you, and we support the minister well and truly for the work that he has done.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.