Bills Digest No. 113,
2016–17
PDF version [722KB]
Michael Klapdor
Social Policy Section
15
June 2017
Contents
List of abbreviations
Purpose of the Bill
Background
Overview of veterans’ legislation
DVA Health Card—All
Conditions/Totally and Permanently Incapacitated (Gold Card)
Eligibility for the Gold Card
Other health cards
Participants in British Nuclear Tests
Health impacts of the nuclear tests
Compensation arrangements
Assistance under veterans’
entitlements and military compensation schemes
2003 Clarke Review of
Veterans’ Entitlements
Howard Government
response to the Clarke Review recommendations
Rudd–Gillard Government changes
Current entitlements
for BNT participants
Gold Card campaign
British Commonwealth
Occupation Forces
Issues around the nature of BCOF
service
Assistance under veterans’
entitlements and military compensation schemes
2003 Clarke Review of
Veterans’ Entitlements
Howard Government’s response to the Clarke
Review recommendations
Rudd-Gillard Government review
Work test for intermediate or special
rate of Disability Pension
Overview of disability pension
payments
General rate
Intermediate rate
Special rate
Extreme disablement adjustment rate
Rehabilitation
Committee consideration
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and
Trade Legislation Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Schedule 1—Australian participants in
British nuclear tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force
Measure breaks with longstanding
principle
Measure will benefit only a small
number of survivors
Key provisions
Australian Participants in British
Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006
Safety, Rehabilitation and
Compensation Act (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988
Schedule 2—work test for intermediate
or special rate of pension
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Schedule 3—rehabilitation programs
Date introduced: 24
May 2017
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Veterans'
Affairs
Commencement: 1
July 2017 with the exception of items 17–18 of Schedule 1 and items 11–25 of
Schedule 3. Commencement of these items is dependent on the commencement of
Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation
Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Act 2017. See table at clause 2
for details.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at June 2017.
List of
abbreviations
Abbreviation |
Definition |
ADF |
Australian Defence Force |
BCOF |
British Commonwealth Occupation Force |
BNT |
British Nuclear Test |
BNT Act |
Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests
(Treatment) Act 2006 |
Clarke Review |
Review of Veterans’ Entitlements (J
Clarke, chair) |
DVA |
Department of Veterans’ Affairs |
Gold Card |
Department of Veterans’ Affairs Health Card—All Conditions |
MRC Act |
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 |
MRCC |
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission |
SRC Act |
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 |
SRC Defence Act |
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation
(Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 |
VE Act |
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 |
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the Veterans’
Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017 (the Bill) is to
amend the Australian
Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 (BNT Act);
the proposed Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related
Claims) Act 1988 (SRC Defence Act), the Veterans’
Entitlements Act 1986 (VE Act), the Military
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRC Act) and a range
of other Acts to implement three 2017–18 budget measures:
- to
provide all those present at British Nuclear Test (BNT) areas during the test periods
and Australian veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force (BCOF)
with treatment for all medical conditions by granting them a DVA Health
Card—All Conditions (Gold Card)
- to
amend the work history eligibility conditions for the Special and Intermediate
rates of Disability Pension to require a period of ten continuous years of work
in any field or vocation prior to application rather than the current
requirement for ten continuous years of work with the same employer or in the
same field or vocation and
- to
provide instrument making powers to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation
Commission (MRCC) to determine a class of people eligible to participate in an
early access to rehabilitation pilot program and to allow access to
rehabilitation services prior to a liability claim under the SRC Defence Act
or MRC Act being accepted.
Background
Overview of
veterans’ legislation
There are three main Acts that provide for support and
compensation for veterans and their dependents:
- the VE Act, which primarily provides benefits and
entitlements for those who undertook wartime service, operational service,
peacekeeping service and hazardous military service before 1 July 2004, and/or
peacetime military service from 7 December 1972 up to 30 June 1994[1]
-
the Safety,
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act), which
provides coverage for illness, injury or death arising from military service
undertaken from 3 January 1949 to 30 June 2004; and for certain periods of
operational service between 7 April 1994 and 30 June 2004[2]
and
- the MRC Act, which provides coverage for illness, injury
or death arising from military service undertaken from 1 July 2004.[3]
The Government has proposed removing provisions of the SRC
Act that apply to defence personnel and placing them in a separate statute:
the proposed Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related
Claims) Act 1988 (SRC Defence Act).[4]
The SRC Defence Act does not yet exist; it is proposed by the Safety,
Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016,
which is currently before the House of Representatives.
Some VE Act benefits, such as income support payments,
are not tied to periods of service but rather the type of service (for example,
whether it involved service during wartime in an area where there was danger
from hostile enemy forces). Other benefits, such as compensation payments and
benefits, are tied to periods of service—eligibility under one or more of the
three statutes will be determined by the period of service and the timing of
the event giving rise to compensation (such as an injury or death).
In some cases, an individual will be eligible for
compensation or benefits for the same condition under more than one of the
three statutes—in such cases, compensation received under one of the Acts will
be offset against the compensation received from another to ensure that the
Commonwealth Government does not provide compensation for the same condition
more than once.
DVA Health
Card—All Conditions/Totally and Permanently Incapacitated (Gold Card)
The Gold Card is a health treatment and care card and
provides access to the full range of medical, hospital, pharmaceutical, dental
and allied health services in Australia funded by DVA.[5]
Medical services are subject to the requirements of the Medicare Benefit
Schedule and prior approval from DVA may be necessary for some treatments.[6]
A patient contribution is required for pharmaceutical services and for nursing
home care. The Gold Card also provides for the costs of transport to access
treatment and medical services.
The Gold Card provides access to health treatments and
care for any condition—regardless of whether that condition is related to a
person’s service.
Those in receipt of a Disability Pension at the special rate
(totally and permanently incapacitated) receive a Gold Card marked ‘Totally and
Permanently Incapacitated’.[7]
Other eligible holders would receive a card marked ‘All Conditions’ signifying
that the card can be used for medical treatment for any conditions.
State and territory governments also provide a range of
concessions to Gold Card holders.
Eligibility
for the Gold Card
Eligibility for a Gold Card is determined primarily by an
individual’s war or defence service (or their deceased partner’s/parent’s
service in the case of dependents) or by a service-related impairment that
qualifies the person for a certain rate of Disability Pension.
Gold Cards are issued to:
- Australian
veterans, including:
- ex-prisoners
of war
- World
War I veterans, nurses and mariners
- ex-service
women of World War II between 3 September 1939 and 29 October 1945 with
qualifying service
- World
War II veterans who served in Australia’s defence force or merchant navy
between 3 September 1939 and 29 October 1945, who are aged 70 years or over and
who have qualifying service from that conflict
- veterans
who served in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) after World War II who are 70
years or over and who have qualifying service under section 7A of the VE Act
(which sets out specific criteria for qualifying service)
- some
veterans of Commonwealth or allied forces with qualifying service during World
War II
- veterans
who receive a Disability Pension under the VE Act if:
- their
rate of Disability Pension is 100 per cent of the general rate or higher
- their
rate of Disability Pension is 50 per cent of the general rate or higher and
they receive any amount of the Service Pension
- their
Disability Pension includes an additional amount for specific service-related
amputations or blindness in one eye or
- they
were granted the Disability Pension for pulmonary tuberculosis before 2
November 1978
- some
veterans who receive an Age or Invalidity Service Pension if they also satisfy
the treatment benefits, income and assets test; are permanently blind in both
eyes; or, also have an impairment for one or more service injuries or diseases
that constitutes at least 30 points under the MRC Act[8]
- former
ADF members, cadets and reservists who conditions for which liability has been
accepted under the MRC Act where:
- they
have a permanent impairment from accepted conditions assessed at or above 60
points or
- they
have a permanent impairment from accepted conditions assessed at 30 points or
above, and are receiving any amount of Service Pension or
- they
meet the criteria for the Special Rate Disability Pension (even if they have
not chosen to receive this payment) and
- some
widows and dependent children of deceased veterans.[9]
Other
health cards
DVA issues a number of other health cards including the DVA
Health Card—Specific Conditions (White Card), the DVA Health Card—Pharmaceuticals
Only (Orange Card) and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.
The White Card provides access to health treatments and care
at DVA’s expense for disabilities and conditions accepted as war or service
related. ADF members and former members can also access treatments for some
specific conditions whether they are service related or not (known as
non-liability health care), including: cancer (malignant neoplasm), pulmonary
tuberculosis, posttraumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder, anxiety
disorder, alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder.[10]
The Orange Card is issued to certain Commonwealth and allied
veterans and mariners and provides access to subsidised medicines under the
Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS).[11]
The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card is available to those
over pension age who do not receive an income support pension from DVA or a
payment from Centrelink and who meet an income test.[12]
It provides access to subsidised medicines under Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
and to some state and territory concessions.
Participants
in British Nuclear Tests
From October 1952 to October 1957, British atomic weapon
detonation tests were conducted at Monte Bello islands off the west coast of
Western Australia and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia.[13]
There were also British tests (involving hydrogen bombs) at Christmas Island in
the Indian Ocean and Malden Islands in the Pacific Ocean but Australians were
not involved.
Table 1 sets out the detonation tests that were conducted in
Australia with Australian participants:
Table 3: date and location of British Nuclear Tests in
Australia
Location |
Operation |
Date/s |
Monte Bello Islands |
Hurricane |
2 October 1952 |
Emu Field |
Totem |
15 October 1953
27 October 1953 |
Monte Bello Islands |
Mosaic |
16 May 1956
19 June 1956 |
Maralinga |
Buffalo |
27 September 1956
4 October 1956
11 October 1956
22 October 1956 |
Maralinga |
Antler |
14 September 1957
25 September 1957
9 October 1957 |
Source: R Cross, Fallout, Wakefield Press, Kent Town,
2001, p. 208 cited in Review of Veterans’ Entitlements (J Clarke, Chair), Report
of the Review of Veterans’ Entitlements, (The Clarke Review),
Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), January 2003, p. 373.
In addition to the detonations, six hundred minor trials
were conducted between 1953 and 1963 at the test areas, including the testing
of bomb components. Many of these trials involved large quantities of
radioactive contamination.[14]
Both Australian and British military personnel were
involved in the tests along with civilian participants such as scientists,
engineers and police. The exact number of Australian participants has been
difficult for DVA to verify, particularly in regards to the number of
Indigenous people in the Maralinga area during the BNTs. DVA compiled a nominal
roll of Australian participants in 2001 and this has been refined over time.
Numbers published in 2001 suggested around 16,716 Australian participants
(including 8,126 military personnel and 8,590 civilians—including ten
Indigenous Australians).[15]
The 2003 Review of Veterans’ Entitlements stated the nominal roll contained
15,406 names including 8,035 military personnel and 7,371 civilians—including
25 Indigenous people.[16]
The term ‘participants’ refers not only to those who
witnessed or were present when the main detonations occurred, but also to those
involved in test-related activities including the cleaning of equipment and
vehicles, and to those involved in activities at the sites up to 1965.[17]
Health
impacts of the nuclear tests
There has been a series of studies and
reports on the health outcomes for BNT participants and their families. There have
also been a number of government inquiries on the impact of the BNTs and a
Royal Commission was established in 1984 to examine the safety standards
observed during the tests.[18]
A detailed discussion of the health studies and reports, and previous
government inquiries can be found in the Bills Digest for
the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Bill 2006.[19]
Compensation
arrangements
BNT participants who were members of the ADF or the
Australian Public Service were covered by workers’ compensation arrangements
under the SRC Act and its predecessor the Compensation
(Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. In 1986, an
administrative scheme based on the SRC Act was created to provide
compensation to civilian participants including Indigenous people and
pastoralists who were at the test sites.[20]
This scheme has closed.[21]
BNT participants also had access to a separate Special
Administrative Scheme (which provided compensation to participants who
developed leukaemia other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia within 25 years of
participating in the tests) and an Act of Grace Scheme, both administered by what
is now the Department of Employment.[22]
The Act of Grace scheme enabled certain plaintiffs with common law actions, issued
and served on the Commonwealth in 1988 and up to 4 September 1989, to have
their cases assessed outside the court system.[23]
It was intended as an opportunity for some common law applicants to have their
cases resolved under the SRC Act.[24]
Further to these specific compensation schemes, a number
of common law claims were made for compensation relating to the BNT program.[25]
The Australian and United Kingdom (UK) Governments signed
an agreement in 1993 under which the UK agreed to pay Australia £20 million ‘in
an ex gratia settlement of Australia’s claims concerning the British nuclear
test program in Australia’.[26]
This money was put towards compensation payments by the Australian Government.[27]
Assistance
under veterans’ entitlements and military compensation schemes
For a long time, governments considered that as the
illness, injuries and death suffered by participants in the BNTs occurred as a
result of events during peacetime, they should be covered by workers’
compensation arrangements that apply to public servants generally (under the SRC
Act and its predecessors) and the other compensation schemes set out above.
Access was precluded to the kind of payments and treatment provided to those
with qualifying service under the VE Act (and its predecessors). For
example, former Minister for Industry, Science and Resources Nick Minchin
stated in answer to a question on notice in 2001:
No disability pension paid by DVA would be paid
for illnesses relating to atomic testing. Atomic testing is not service covered
by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Therefore, all pensions paid by
DVA [to BNT participants] are for conditions arising from service other than
atomic testing.[28]
2003 Clarke Review of Veterans’ Entitlements
In its terms of reference, the 2003 Review
of Veterans’ Entitlements (the Clarke Review) was specifically asked to examine
the claims by BNT participants and consider what would be appropriate
assistance by government. The Clarke Review recommended the accreditation of
participation in the nuclear tests for ADF personnel as ‘non-warlike hazardous
service’.[29]
The Review received 160 submissions
regarding the BNTs with many arguing for compensation coverage under the VE
Act by classifying participation in the BNTs as ‘non-warlike hazardous
service’.[30]
Coverage as hazardous service would, at the time, have enabled access to:
- the Disability Pension and War Widow(er)’s Pension or Orphan’s Pension
(where a person’s condition was deemed linked to their service)
- a Repatriation Health Card—For Specific Conditions (White Card) which
would provide treatment for accepted, service-related conditions
- a Gold Card, where the person meets relevant criteria such as a
Disability Pension payment rate above 100 per cent and
- a White Card for malignant neoplasm and posttraumatic stress disorder,
irrespective of whether the condition is service-related (known as
non-liability health care).[31]
A small number of submissions also sought
classification of participation in the BNTs as ‘qualifying service’. This is
treated the same as war or warlike service and would basically have allowed
access to the Service Pension and an automatic grant of the Gold Card for those
aged 70 or above. This proposal was not supported by the Clarke Review.[32]
The Clarke Review considered that the
particular circumstances of the BNT warranted a one-off extension of VE Act coverage
to participants:
Apart from involvement in wars, other conflicts
and overseas deployments, it is difficult to conceive of another Australian
military operation in the 20th century comparable to the tests’ scale and risk
of harm to individuals.
The concerns of the participants in the British
atomic tests have been a long-standing issue. There has been an inadequate
response by successive governments over many decades. It is a sad fact that the
recognition of the unusual hazards faced by the participants has not led to
prompt action to ensure a more appropriate compensation arrangement with ready
access, given the nature of the hazards.[33]
Howard Government response to the Clarke Review recommendations
The Howard Government rejected the Clarke
Review recommendation to accord ADF personnel involved in the nuclear testing
with accreditation as being involved in non-warlike hazardous service. However,
while the Howard Government chose not to change the service classification for
participants, it made a loose commitment to meeting their needs in other ways.
Then Prime Minister John Howard stated:
The Government also had decided to respond
positively to the needs of those affected by the British Atomic Test programme
when the outcomes are available of the Australian Participants in the British
Nuclear Test Programme – Cancer Incidence and Mortality Study.
The Government will continue to provide special
recognition and comprehensive assistance to those who have served Australia in
times of war, at personal risk of injury or death from an armed enemy.
In keeping with this approach, we have accepted
the Clarke Report’s recommendation that there be no change in the incurred
danger test for Qualifying Service. However, we reject the view that this test
has been interpreted too narrowly.[34]
Upon releasing the cancer incidence and
mortality studies in 2006, the Howard Government announced that it would extend
to BNT participants free testing and treatment for all cancers:[35]
“Although the study found that the rate of some cancers among
the nuclear test participants was higher than in the general Australian
population, it did not find any link between the increase in cancer rates and
exposure to radiation," Mr Billson said.
"Despite the lack of association between cancer rates
and radiation exposure, the Government has decided that it would be appropriate
to provide health cover for nuclear test participants who have any form of
cancer.”[36]
The extension of this health treatment to BNT participants
was legislated through the BNT Act and
both defence and civilian participants were eligible where they were in the
test areas (or involved with vehicles or equipment used in the test areas)
during specific periods. Civilian participants covered by this arrangement at
the time included employees of the Commonwealth (Australian Public Servants)
and those who were contracted by the Commonwealth to provide construction,
maintenance or support services relating to the BNTs in the test area.
Rudd–Gillard
Government changes
In 2008, the Rudd Government expanded the period for which
federal police officers could be considered as BNT participants (for the
purposes of cancer screening and treatment) at Maralinga from 30 April 1965–30
June 1988. These police performed guard duties and the expanded coverage was in
recognition that they may have been exposed to conditions causing adverse
health outcomes over a longer period of time.[37]
In the 2010–11 Budget, the Rudd Government announced that
it would classify the service of BNT participants who were members of the ADF
as ‘non-warlike or hazardous peacekeeping service’ under the VE Act in
line with the Clarke Review recommendation. The Veterans’ Affairs
Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Act 2010 inserted a new
classification of ‘British nuclear test defence service’ into the VE Act
and provided those eligible with access to the Disability Pension (for
illnesses and injuries arising from BNT defence service) and to the War
Widow/er’s Pension (where the death of the service person was attributable to
their BNT defence service).[38]
Only members of the ADF who participated in the BNTs were
made eligible for assistance under this amendment to the VE Act.
Civilian participants were not given access to benefits under the VE Act,
unlike the cancer screening and treatment measures.
Also in 2010, the Government amended the BNT Act to
include Australian Protective Service officers who performed guard duties at
Maralinga between 20 October 1984 and 30 June 1988 as ‘nuclear test
participants’. These officers were not considered members of the Australian
Federal Police from 20 October 1984 and were therefore not eligible for the
cancer screening and treatment (following the 2008 changes described above).[39]
In 2011, the Gillard Government enabled the Repatriation
Commission to determine, by way of legislative instrument, additional
eligibility requirements for BNT participants to access VE Act payments
or the cancer testing and treatment program. The measures in the Veterans’
Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Act 2011 were intended to allow the Repatriation Commission to provide eligible
personnel, who were excluded from the available BNT assistance because of the legislated
definitions, with access to VEA benefits or cancer screening and treatment.[40]
Current entitlements for BNT participants
BNT participants who were members of the ADF and
Australian Public Servants who were injured or suffered loss as a result of
their participation in the BNT program have access to compensation under the Safety,
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRCA). Civilian BNT participants
are covered by the SRCA-like scheme administered by the Department of
Employment.
Both military and civilian personnel who were BNT
participants are able to access screening and treatment for all cancers.[41]
ADF members who were participants in the BNT,
where their condition is accepted under the VE Act as being related to
their participation in the BNT, are eligible for Disability Pension. Widow/ers
of former ADF members whose death is accepted under the VE Act as
related to their BNT service can access the War Widow/er’s Pension. Access to
these pensions can entitle eligible recipients to other benefits including
Veterans Supplement and the Veterans’ Children’s Education Scheme as well as
assistance with medical costs via a White or Gold Card.[42]
Gold Card campaign
There has been an ongoing campaign from
representatives of BNT participants, the Australian Greens and independent
Senator Nick Xenophon to automatically grant a Gold Card to BNT participants
who are former members of the ADF.[43]
These groups claim that DVA seldom accepts that BNT participants’ impairments
are directly linked to their radiation exposure and as a result they are unable
to access either the Disability Pension or a White or Gold Card.[44] ADF members who were
participants in the BNT believe that they should be treated in a similar way to
veterans of conflicts such as World War II and provided with a Gold Card
automatically when they reach the age of 70.[45]
Before the 2013 Election, the Australian
Greens requested the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) cost a policy of
providing all former ADF members who were BNT participants with a Gold Card.
The PBO estimated that the cost would be $82.5 million over four years from
2013–14. Estimates provided by DVA to PBO found the population that would be
eligible for the Gold Card under this policy would be 1,500 on 1 July 2014,
declining to approximately 1,300 by 1 July 2016. The cost per Gold Card would
be $22,800 in 2014–15 rising to $25,000 by 2016–17.[46]
During the 2016 Election, the Australian
Greens had a new policy costed by the PBO to provide a broader compensation
package to BNT participants. This policy included an inquiry into the effects
of the BNTs on affected communities, the provision of lump-sum compensation payments
worth a total of $60 million, provide all ADF BNT participants with a Gold Card
and provide 1,200 ‘atomic survivors’ with an ‘Atomic Survivors Health Care
Card’ based on the Gold Card (for other BNT participants and to survivors of
BNT participants).[47]
The 2016 policy was expected to cost a total
of $189.8 over the four years from 2016–17 (including $72.0 million for the
Gold Card measure and $55.0 million for the Atomic Survivors Health Care Card
measure).[48]
British Commonwealth Occupation Forces
BCOF consisted of the armed forces from Australia, the
United Kingdom, New Zealand and India who occupied Japan after the surrender in
1945.[49]
Australian occupation forces were located in Japan from 1945 to 1951 and were
initially based in the Hiroshima and Yamaguchi prefectures.[50]
This was later expanded to include the Shimane, Tottori and Okayama prefectures
on Honshu, and the Kagawa, Ehime, Kochi and Tokushima prefectures on Shikoku.[51]
According to the Clarke Review:
The primary objective of BCOF was to enforce the terms of the
unconditional surrender that had ended the war in September 1945. BCOF was
required to maintain military control, and to supervise the demilitarisation of
the country and the dismantling of the remnants of Japan's war infrastructure.
The main body of Australian troops arrived in Japan on 21
February 1946, some seven months after the atomic bombs were dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Australian contingent of BCOF was made up of
members of the Australian Imperial Force, the Permanent Defence Force and the
Interim Forces. The Army was responsible for the Hiroshima Prefecture, while
the Air Force element was stationed at Bofu in the Yamaguchi Prefecture. The
naval shore establishment was located at the former Japanese naval base at
Kure.
From June 1947, BCOF numbers began to decline from a peak of
over 40,000 service personnel from the four Commonwealth countries. By the end
of 1948, BCOF was composed entirely of Australians. The force was effectively
dismantled during 1951, as responsibilities in Japan were handed over to the
British Commonwealth Forces Korea.[52]
DVA has estimated there were around 17,000 Australians who
served in BCOF.[53]
There were 77 deaths recorded among the Australian BCOF contingent, some were
attributed to munitions exploding, a third were due to motor vehicle accidents but
none were attributed to direct hostile action by Japanese forces.[54]
The Australian BCOF contingent was a mix of World War II
veterans and newly recruited soldiers. A key issue for BCOF members is the
different entitlements for members recognised as having qualifying service
(such as prior service during the VE Act’s defined period of hostilities
for World War II—3 September 1939 to 29 October 1945) and those who are
not considered to have qualifying service. There has been ongoing contention
around the way service in BCOF has been defined (under the VE Act and
its predecessors), how particular periods of BCOF service should be defined,
and how BCOF service was advertised and recognised at the time of the
occupation.[55]
Issues
around the nature of BCOF service
The issues around what kind of entitlements BCOF members
should be entitled are manifold and relate to commitments at the time, the way
qualifying service was classified in repatriation legislation, as well as the
nature of the service in Japan. In summary they include:
- a
commitment by Prime Minister Chifley in 1946 that those who enlisted in the
occupation force in Japan before the end of a ‘state of war’ would be entitled
to ‘full benefits’ under repatriation legislation[56]
- recruitment
advertisements at the time which promised full repatriation benefits and a
declaration by the then Governor-General that BCOF service was ‘active service’[57]
- that
BCOF was formed and deployed as a combat force and Japanese forces did fire
weapons at BCOF members on occasion[58]
- dispute
about when the state of war or period of hostilities should be determined as
having ended: for example, following the surrender, the signing of the peace
treaty in 1952 or when certain military operations had ceased[59]
- the
definition of key terms such as ‘theatre of war’ used in the repatriation
legislation[60]
- the
conditions faced by BCOF members including dangers inherent in occupying Japan[61]
and
- possible
exposure to radiation arising from the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.[62]
Assistance
under veterans’ entitlements and military compensation schemes
Under the VE Act, BCOF service is not considered
qualifying service (for payment of the Service Pension or automatic issue of a
Gold Card when a veteran turns 70). Those with service in BCOF up to
1 July 1951 are considered to have operational service and can therefore
access Disability Pension and other compensation payments where their condition
is linked to that service.
BCOF members have, over a long period, pushed for
recognition of their service as qualifying service for the purposes of the
Service Pension and for automatic issue of the Gold Card.[63]
However, governments have resisted this campaign—primarily on the basis that
the service did not meet the relevant ‘incurred danger’ test for qualifying
service.[64]
2003 Clarke Review of Veterans’ Entitlements
The Clarke Review examined the issue of BCOF
entitlements and made one recommendation in relation to how the BCOF service
should be classified. The Review recommended that service with BCOF be
declared:
- warlike from 21 February 1946 to 30 June 1947 and
- non-warlike from 1 July 1947 to 30 June 1951 inclusive.[65]
The Clarke Review stated that had the ‘warlike’ definition
been in existence at the time (in 1946) it would have been used for the initial
BCOF period. It also held that the nature of the service would have been
reviewed and downgraded in June 1947 when most of the force left Japan (the
families of servicemen arrived in Japan at this time and a township was
established in August 1947).[66]
If the Government had adopted the Clarke Review’s approach
to service classifications, declaring the pre-30 June 1947 service as warlike
would mean that the BCOF members would be considered as having qualifying
service and would be eligible for the Service Pension and the Gold Card (as
they would be 70 years or older). However, the Clarke Review stated that
‘blanket extension of the Gold Card is not warranted for all veterans of the
Australian armed services who served with the BCOF on the grounds of BCOF
service only’.[67]
Howard
Government’s response to the Clarke Review recommendations
The Howard Government’s response to the Clarke Review,
delivered by then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Danna Vale, stated that the
Government did not accept the report’s recommendations to extend qualifying
service to certain BCOF members. The response stated:
Public support and confidence in the generosity of our
Repatriation System depends on the 'incurred danger test' remaining objective.
We would create anomalies if we were to confuse a state of readiness, or
presence in a former enemy's territory, with the real and tangible risks of facing
an armed and hostile enemy.[68]
The response also stated that it had ‘accepted all of the
Committee’s recommendations that there be no further extensions of the Gold
Card’.[69]
Rudd-Gillard
Government review
In 2008, the Rudd Government initiated a review of Clarke
Review recommendations that had not been supported by the previous government,
including those relating to BCOF service.[70]
Upon announcing its response to this review of the Clarke
Review recommendations, the Government stated that the classification of BCOF
service would be subject to further review within Government.[71]
The Rudd Government requested that an independent review be
conducted of BCOF service—examining the historical evidence and its
interpretation by DVA and the Department of Defence. This review was completed
by Peter Sutherland, a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University’s
College of Law, in August 2011. Sutherland’s opinion was that BCOF members
should not be considered to have qualifying service based on their BCOF service
alone (as set out in the VE Act and its predecessors).[72]
Sutherland’s approach to the review was to consider whether BCOF service and
the commitments to benefits made at the time meant that it should have been
considered as qualifying service for the Service Pension ‘in the context of the
legislation and policy extant at the time of the service being reviewed’.[73]
This approach meant that the Clarke Review’s warlike/non-warlike framework was
disregarded.[74]
Work test
for intermediate or special rate of Disability Pension
Schedule 2 of the Bill amends work history restrictions that
apply in relation to eligibility for the intermediate and special rate of
Disability Pension for those aged over 65. The current eligibility criteria are
set out below. The proposed changes will require ten continuous years of work
in any field or vocation rather than ten years with the same employer (or in
the same field if self-employed).
Overview of
disability pension payments
There are four separate Disability
Pension payments provided under the VE Act, each with different
origins, purposes and evolutions.[75]
Each is not payable concurrently and each has a different payment rate. The
payments are:
- general
rate paid from 10 per cent up to 100 per cent, currently from $55.43 to $485.00
per fortnight (pf)
- intermediate
rate, currently $926.20 pf
- special
rate (totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI)), blinded, or totally and temporarily
incapacitated (T&TI) currently $1,364.30 pf and
- the
extreme disablement adjustment (EDA) rate, currently $753.60 pf.[76]
The disability pensions provided under the VE Act
are paid as compensation for a war or service caused/related illness or injury.
Being compensation, they are not means tested (income or assets tested) and are
not taxable income.
General rate
The general rate is linked to an individual’s
level of assessed impairment. The level of impairment is assessed using the Guide to the assessment of rates of veterans’ pensions (GARP).[77]
Intermediate
rate
The intermediate rate disability pension is potentially
payable where a person is assessed as having a 70 per cent or more disability
(using the assessment for the general rate) and it is also assessed that the
person is unable to work for at least 20 hours a week (or more than 50 per cent
of full-time hours normally worked). In this case, the intermediate rate is
paid instead of a general rate disability pension of 70 per cent or more.[78]
The intermediate rate is not always payable where the
disability assessment is 70 per cent or more. For example, a person may be
assessed as having an 80 per cent disability but may also be able to work for
more than 20 hours a week. In this case the intermediate rate is not payable,
only the 80 per cent general rate.
The intermediate rate, which is paid at a higher rate than
the 100 per cent general rate, recognises the work inability of the person
arising from their war/service caused/related illness or injury, so, the intermediate
rate has a component for income replacement.
Additional qualification criteria apply where a person is
aged 65 or more. The last paid work, which is precluded by the incapacity, must
have commenced prior to 65 and the person must have been employed in it for at
least 10 years.
Individuals aged 65 or more with very severe disabilities
but ineligible for the intermediate rate, may be entitled to the extreme
disablement adjustment rate of disability pension (see below).
Special
rate
The special rate disability pension is commonly referred to
as the totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) disability pension. The special
rate works very much like the intermediate rate with a more stringent inability
to work test. The special rate is potentially payable where the person is
assessed as having a 70 per cent or more disability (using the assessment used
for the general rate) and is also assessed as unable to work for at least eight
hours a week.[79]
The special rate is the only amount of disability pension paid and is not paid
in addition to any general rate disability pension.
Separate to the work test, there are a few other situations
where the special rate can be paid, for example where the person is blinded in
both eyes due to their accepted conditions.[80]
The special rate as applied under the VE Act, which
is paid at a higher rate than the 100 per cent general rate, recognises the
work inability of the person arising from their war/service caused/related
illness or injury, so has a component for income replacement.
Additional qualification criteria apply where a person is
aged 65 or more. The last paid work, which is precluded by the incapacity, must
have commenced prior to 65 and the person must have been employed in it for at
least 10 years.
Individuals aged 65 or more with very severe disabilities
but ineligible for the special rate, may be entitled to the extreme disablement
adjustment rate of disability pension (see below).
Extreme disablement
adjustment rate
The EDA disability pension can only be considered for
veterans who have reached 65 years of age and who are entitled to a disability
pension at 100 per cent general rate but are not eligible to receive a special
rate or intermediate rate pension (for example, because they do not meet the
work history requirements). As the veteran is aged 65 or more, the work tests are
not applied. Instead a test requiring 70 medical impairment points or more and
at least six out of seven lifestyle points (determined under the GARP) is
applied to qualify for EDA.[81]
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation programs are aimed at improving the potential
for a person with a service injury or disease to return to their previous
physical and psychological state, and to return to the same social and
vocational status.[82]
Programs can include medical, dental and psychiatric care; exercise and
physiotherapy; psychosocial training and counselling; aids and appliances; and
modifications to homes, workplaces and vehicles.[83]
Current and former service personnel can be eligible for
different rehabilitation programs under different access rules based on their
service status and the compensation scheme they are eligible for. Full-time
serving members of the ADF are able to access the Australian Defence Force
Rehabilitation Program with no requirement that liability for an injury or
disease be established under a compensation scheme.[84]
Some former members of the ADF and part-time reservists are
eligible for rehabilitation programs provided by the Military Rehabilitation
and Compensation Commission (MRCC) but liability for their injury or disease
must first be established under the MRC Act or the SRC Act (or
future SRC Defence Act).[85]
Some former members of the ADF with eligibility under the VE
Act are eligible for rehabilitation programs provided by the Veterans’
Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme. Those with service eligibility under the VE
Act (see ‘Overview of veterans’ legislation’ section above) can access this
scheme without submitting a claim for liability.[86]
A 2011 Review of Military Compensation Arrangements
recommended that the ADF and DVA develop further options to improve access to
early intervention rehabilitation services.[87]
The Government has proposed a six month pilot program providing early access to
rehabilitation services to 100 people in 2017–18.[88]
Schedule 3 proposes amendments to allow the MRCC to
determine a class of people eligible to participate in an early access to
rehabilitation pilot program and to allow for rehabilitation services to be
provided to these people without the need for them to first have a claim for
liability accepted under the MRC Act.
Committee
consideration
Senate
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
The Bill was
referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
for inquiry and report by 13 June 2017. Details are on the Committee
homepage.[89]
The Committee determined that there were no substantive
matters requiring examination.[90]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had
no comment on the Bill.[91]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
The Australian Labor Party (Labor) supports the Bill.
Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Amanda Rishworth, stated in her second
reading speech on the Bill:
Labor welcomes the expansion of full health cover to BNT
participants, BCOF veterans and civilians, which will enable them to receive
the treatment that they need and acknowledges the ongoing impact this exposure
had on the individuals who were present on the test sites.
This recognition is the result of a long campaign by BNT and
BCOF participants. These individuals, nearly all of whom are over 80 years of
age, have spent their lives fighting for recognition of the risks they endured
and the need for increased support ...[92]
The former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (in the Gillard
Government) Warren Snowdon offered an apology to those affected by the BNTs,
particularly Indigenous people:
But sadly, I am standing here as a former minister and as a
member of governments who over the period really failed to recognise, apart
from in the Maralinga royal commission, the personal impact that this has had
on individuals and families. For that I am sorry.
...
It is very difficult, for me particularly, because I have
lived and worked in the Pitjantjatjara lands with the Yankunytjatjara
Pitjantjatjara people, and I know families who are directly affected by these
bomb tests ... They are right. This is 60 years too late. I apologise, because as
a member of this parliament I should have been advocating a lot more strongly
than I have done for their cause. I pay tribute to the minister for at last
cooperating in recognition of their suffering. Whilst we are talking about the
veterans—and I pay my great respect to those veterans who are impacted by these
bomb tests—I cannot let pass the opportunity to try and get people to
understand the absolutely horrific impacts these bomb tests had on the
Aboriginal people of South Australia. I suspect there may be a few people who
will be properly recognised in terms of treatments as a result of this
legislation, but absolutely nothing we can do here will ever alleviate the pain
and suffering of those who have passed, and their families who have felt that
in an ongoing way.[93]
The Nick Xenophon Team has welcomed the Gold Card measures
as announced in the Budget.[94]
Senator Xenophon has campaigned on behalf of BNT participants and BCOF members
for automatic access to a Gold Card over a long period.
Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, who has also campaigned
on this issue over a long period, also welcomed the Gold Card measure.[95]
Position of
major interest groups
The national offices of the major ex-service organisations
have not issued statements on the proposed measures.
Financial
implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, the
measures will cost a total of $136.0 million over the forward estimates period.[96]
The Gold Card measure in Schedule 1 will cost $133.1 million and the Disability
Pension changes in Schedule 2 will cost $2.9 million. The measures in Schedule
3 are expected to have a minimal financial impact over the forward estimates.[97]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[98]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considers
that the Bill does not raise human rights concerns.[99]
Key issues
and provisions
Schedule
1—Australian participants in British nuclear tests and British Commonwealth
Occupation Force
Schedule 1 will amend the BNT Act to provide for
medical treatment and support for any health condition (via a DVA Gold Card) to
all those who were in a nuclear test area during the BNT periods and to all
BCOF members in Japan at any time from 31 January 1946 to 28 April 1952. Those
granted a Gold Card through these amendments will also be eligible for a small
pharmaceutical supplement unless they are already in receipt of an equivalent
supplement paid with a social security or veterans’ payment.
DVA estimates that 1,800 surviving BNT participants and
1,100 surviving BCOF members will be benefit from the measure.[100]
Measure
breaks with longstanding principle
As discussed in the background section above, BNT
participants, BCOF members and their families have long campaigned for greater
compensation and access to veterans’ entitlements, particularly the Gold Card.
While many BNT participants and BCOF members have been eligible for veterans’
entitlements as a result of other service, a large group of service personnel
and civilians have not been able to access their various compensation schemes
and have been ineligible for what the Clarke Review described as the ‘single
most sought-after benefit under the VE Act’: the Gold Card.[101]
Governments have consistently denied this group access to
the Service Pension and automatic access to the Gold Card on the principle that
such entitlements should be reserved for those who served in times of war and
who faced danger from an armed enemy.[102]
The extension of the Gold Card to BNT participants and BCOF members will break
with this longstanding principle.
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Dan Tehan stated in his
second reading speech that this significant change in policy is ‘in recognition
of the possible exposure to ionising radiation experienced by both Australian
veterans of BCOF and the BNT veterans’.[103]
This suggests that while the classification of these periods of service has not
changed (there are no changes to the definition of qualifying service under the
VE Act), there is now much greater recognition of the dangers to health
posed by the testing and use of nuclear weapons.
Measure
will benefit only a small number of survivors
With BCOF service commencing more than 70 years ago, and the
first BNT more than 65 years ago, only a minority of those who served or were
near the nuclear test sites are alive to benefit from this measure. DVA’s
estimates for the costing of the 2013 Australian Greens policy to provide a
Gold Card to all ADF BNT participants suggested that numbers who would benefit
would decline from 1,500 in 2014 to 1,300 in 2016.
It is unclear how many surviving BNT participants and BCOF
members have been entitled to a Gold Card under the other eligibility rules but
it is clear that many who would have benefited from the health treatment
entitlements have died in the decades since the tests and the occupation.
Key
provisions
Australian
Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006
Items 1 and 2 amend the long and short title of the
BNT Act, respectively. The short title will now be Australian
Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force
(Treatment) Act 2006.
Item 3 inserts a new definition of British
Commonwealth Occupation Force participant at subsection 4(1). A British
Commonwealth Occupation Force participant is a person who was a member
of the ADF who served in the BCOF in Japan at any time during the period 31
January 1946 to 28 April 1952.
Item 4 repeals the definition of testing
at subsection 4(1) and item 5 removes the words ‘of malignant neoplasia,
and includes testing’ from the definition of treatment at
subsection 4(1). These definitions of terms are no longer needed as the Gold
Card entitlement will provide for treatment for any health conditions (that is,
it will not be limited to malignant neoplasia).
Item 7 repeals paragraph 5(1)(b). Subsection
5(1) provides for a person to be considered a nuclear test participant
if they were an Australian resident in a nuclear test area at any time during:
- if
the area was the Monte Bello Islands area—the period from the beginning of
3 October 1952 to the end of 19 June 1958 or
- if
the area was the Emu Field area—the period from the beginning of
15 October 1953 to the end of 25 October 1955 or
- if
the area was the Maralinga area—the period from the beginning of
27 September 1956 to the end of 30 April 1965.
The specific boundaries of the nuclear test areas are
defined at subsection 5(4) of the BNT Act.
Currently, paragraph 5(1)(b) requires the person to also
have been, at the time they were in the nuclear test area, a member of the ADF,
an employee of the Commonwealth, or a person contracted by the Commonwealth to
provide construction, maintenance or support services relating to the conduct
of nuclear tests in the nuclear test area. By repealing paragraph 5(1)(b), the
requirement for being considered a nuclear test participant under this
subsection will be only that a person was in the nuclear test area at the times
set out above and an Australian resident. This will allow all civilians in the
nuclear test areas to be considered nuclear test participants under the Act.
Item 9 amends paragraph 7(1)(a) to enable
British Commonwealth Occupation Force participants to be considered eligible
for treatment under the BNT Act alongside nuclear test participants.
Item 10 substitutes subsection 7(2).
Subsection 7(2) currently prevents access to treatment under the BNT Act for
those members of the ADF and Australian Public Service who had liability for
treatment accepted under one of the compensation schemes described above (see
Background section). The amendments will prevent access to treatment under the BNT
Act to those eligible for treatment for all conditions under the VE Act
or the MRC Act. This will ensure that individuals eligible for a Gold
Card under the VE Act and the MRC Act will not also be eligible
for a Gold Card under the BNT Act.
Item 13 inserts Part 3A—Pharmaceutical
supplement which will provide for payment of a pharmaceutical supplement to
all persons eligible for treatment under the BNT Act. The pharmaceutical
supplement is intended to assist with the cost of co-payments for prescription
pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical supplement payable under the BNT Act
will be different from the pharmaceutical allowance payable under the VE Act.[104]
The rate of the pharmaceutical supplement payable under the BNT Act will
be equivalent to the ‘low rate’ of veterans supplement (currently $6.20 per
fortnight).[105]
Under proposed subsection 23C(4) pharmaceutical
supplement will not be payable to certain recipients of veterans supplement
under the VE Act, the MRCA Supplement under the MRC Act or a
pharmaceutical allowance under the Social Security Act 1991 or to:
- those
considered wholly dependent partners of a deceased member (within the meaning
of the MRC Act)
- those
receiving a social security payment with which a pension supplement is included
(most pension payments such as the Age Pension and Carer Payment)
- and
those receiving certain pension payments under the VE Act.
People in the above categories would generally receive an
amount equivalent to the pharmaceutical supplement, or for the same purpose as
the pharmaceutical supplement.
Item 14 inserts section 48A which will allow
for the recovery of certain medical treatment costs where a person has received
treatment under the BNT Act and subsequently receives compensation from
another source for the same incapacity treated under the BNT Act.
Section 48A will allow for the application of section 93 of the VE Act
in such cases so that, in such cases of double compensation, the person would
be required to repay the relevant amount to the Repatriation Commission or have
the amount offset against any veterans’ payments the person might receive.
Item 16 is an application provision that provides
for the compensation recovery provision at new section 48A (inserted by item
14) to only apply to claims, entitlements and payments made after 1 July 2017.
Safety,
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988
Items 17 and 18 amend the proposed SRC Defence Act
so that those eligible for treatment under the BNT Act will not be
eligible for treatment under the SRC Defence Act.
Schedule 2—work
test for intermediate or special rate of pension
Schedule 2 will make the work history test for eligibility
for the intermediate and special rates of Disability Pension less stringent.
Rather than requiring ten consecutive years of work for the same employer or in
the same field (for those self-employed), the Bill will allow access to those
with at least ten years of continuous paid work for any number of employers and
in any field.
This is a sensible change and reflects the fact that people
are much less likely to stay with one particular employer over a long period.
Veterans’
Entitlements Act 1986
Item 1 substitutes paragraph 23(3A)(g) of the VE
Act to amend the work history requirement for the intermediate rate of
Disability Pension. Currently, the paragraph requires a veteran aged over 65
claiming this rate of Disability Pension to have worked for the same employer
or in the same field (if self-employed) for at least ten years in a continuous
period prior to turning 65. The new paragraph will require only that the
veteran was undertaking paid work for a continuous period of at least ten years,
with that period commencing before they turned 65.
Item 2 makes a similar amendment to the work history
requirement for the special rate of Disability Pension at paragraph
24(2A)(g).
Schedule 3—rehabilitation
programs
As discussed in the background section above, the Government
will implement a pilot program to provide earlier access to rehabilitation
services for those whose claim for liability under the MRC Act has not
yet been determined. Schedule 3 makes the necessary amendments to the MRC
Act to allow for this pilot to commence.
Part 2 of Chapter 3 of the MRC Act provides for
rehabilitation programs to be provided to individuals deemed eligible under
this Part. Section 43 of the MRC Act currently stipulates that
rehabilitation programs can only be provided to individuals who are
incapacitated for service or work, or who have impairment as a result of a
service injury or diseases, where the MRCC has accepted liability for the
injury or disease.
Item 5 adds proposed subsections 43(3), (4) and
(5) to the MRC Act to allow for the MRCC to determine, by
legislative instrument, a class of persons eligible for rehabilitation programs
under Part 2 who have made a claim for liability under the MRC Act but
the MRCC has not yet determined the claim. This will allow the MRCC to
determine a group of people eligible for the early access to rehabilitation
pilot program.
Items 11 and 15 insert similar provisions as item
5 into relevant sections of the proposed SRC Defence Act.
[1]. Department
of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), ‘Veterans’
Entitlements Act (VEA)’, DVA website, n.d.
[2]. DVA,
‘Overview
of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRCA)’, Factsheet
MCS01, DVA, 13 October 2016.
[3]. DVA,
‘Military
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (MRCA)’, DVA website, n.d.
[4]. See
P Pyburne, Safety,
Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016,
Bills digest, 56, 2016–17, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2017.
[5]. DVA,
‘Using
the DVA Health Card: All Conditions (Gold) or DVA Health Card Totally and Permanently
Incapacitated (Gold)’, Factsheet HSV60, DVA, Canberra, 23 February 2017.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. Disability
Pension is paid at different rates based on the level of impairment, and, for
some recipients, by their work capacity. See DVA, ‘Overview
of disability pensions and allowances’, Factsheet DP01, DVA, Canberra, 11
April 2017.
[8]. The
extent of an individual’s medical impairment is measured in impairment points
on a scale from zero to 100 using the Guide to Determining Impairment and
Compensation. DVA, ‘Ch.
5: permanent impairment: 5.1 overview’, Military Rehabilitation and
Compensation Act 2004 policy manual, DVA, Canberra, August 2014.
[9]. DVA,
‘Eligibility
for the DVA Health Card All Conditions (Gold) or Totally and Permanently
Incapacitated (Gold)’, Factsheet HSV59, DVA, Canberra, 22 February 2017.
[10]. DVA,
‘Veterans’
health cards’, DVA website.
[11]. Ibid.
[12]. Ibid.
[13]. Review
of Veterans’ Entitlements (J Clarke, Chair), Report
of the Review of Veterans’ Entitlements, (The Clarke Review), DVA,
January 2003, p. 373.
[14]. M
Carter, F Robotham, K Wise, G Williams and P Crouch, Australian
participants in British nuclear tests in Australia: Dosimetry 2006,
DVA, Canberra, 2006, p. 6.
[15]. N
Minchin, ‘Answer to question on notice: Atomic Testing: Compensation’,
[Questioner: L Allison], Question
3625, Senate, Debates, 22 August 2001, p. 26428.
[16]. Review
of Veterans’ Entitlements, op. cit., p. 375.
[17]. Ibid.
[18]. Royal
Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia, Report
of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia,
(McClelland Royal Commission), Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra, 1985.
[19]. P
Yeend and A Biggs, Australian
Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Bill 2006, Bills
digest, 31, 2006–07, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 9 October 2006. A summary of selected health studies on the impact on participants from
other countries is available at: Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO PC), ‘The United Kingdom’s nuclear testing programme’,
CTBTO PC website.
[20]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment)
Bill 2006, p. iii.
[21]. Australian
Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC), Comparison
of workers’ compensation arrangements in Australia and New Zealand,
ASCC, Canberra, 30 June 2007, p. 104.
[22]. Ibid.
[23]. Ibid.
[24]. Ibid.
[25]. P
Yeend and A Biggs, op. cit., p. 7.
[26]. N
Minchin, ‘Answer
to Question on notice: Nuclear tests: compensation’, [Questioner L
Allison], Question 3865, Senate, Debates, 27 September 2001, p.
28304.
[27]. Ibid.
[28]. N
Minchin, ‘Answer
to Question on notice: Atomic testing: compensation’, [Questioner L
Allison], Question 3625, Senate, Debates, 22 August 2001, p. 26428.
[29]. Clarke
Review, op. cit., p. 399.
[30]. Ibid.,
p. 371.
[31]. Ibid.,
p. 372.
[32]. Ibid.,
pp. 371, 398–399.
[33]. Ibid.,
p. 394.
[34]. J Howard (Prime Minister), Additional benefits for veterans, government response to the Clarke
Report, media release,
2 March 2004.
[35]. M
Carter et al, op. cit.
[36]. B
Billson (Minister for Veterans’ Affairs), Nuclear
test participants to receive additional health care, media release, 28
June 2006.
[37]. P
Yeend, Veterans'
Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures)
Bill 2008, Bills digest, 103, 2007–08, Parliamentary Library, Canberra,
23 May 2008.
[38]. P
Yeend, Veterans'
Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010, Bills
digest, 164, 2009–10, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 8 June 2010.
[39]. L
Buckmaster, Veterans'
Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010,
Bills digest, 22, 2010–10, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2010.
[40]. P
Yeend, Veterans'
Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011,
Bills digest, 55, 2011–12, 2011, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2011.
[41]. DVA,
‘British
Nuclear Tests: frequently asked questions’, DVA website.
[42]. See
list of supplements and concessions at DVA, ‘Income support’,
DVA website.
[43]. N
Xenophon, Major
parties continue to neglect Maralinga veterans, media release, 12
September 2011.
[44]. Australian
Greens, Nuclear
veterans deserve gold card health care, Australian Greens policy
document, 2013.
[45]. See,
for example, T Shepherd, ‘Bomb test survivors still
suffer the fallout’, The Advertiser, 11 May 2013.
[46]. Parliamentary
Budget Office (PBO), ‘Australian Greens: Gold
Card for nuclear veterans’, Policy costing—election caretaker period, PBO,
Canberra, 23 August 2013.
[47]. Australian
Greens, Nuclear
weapons: addressing the past: protecting the future, Australian Greens
policy document, 2016.
[48]. PBO,
‘Appendix
G: Costing documentation for the Greens’ election commitments’, Post-election
report of election commitments: 2016 general election, PBO, Canberra,
August 2016, pp. 919–921.
[49]. For
a history of Australia’s involvement see J Wood, The
Australian military contribution to the occupation of Japan, 1945–1952,
Australian War Memorial, Canberra, n.d.
[50]. Clarke
Review, op. cit., p. 362.
[51]. Ibid.
[52]. Ibid.
[53]. Ibid.
[54]. Ibid.
[55]. See
P Sutherland, ‘Analysis
of the possible entitlement to service pension of members of the British
Commonwealth Occupation Force’, DVA, Canberra, 2011.
[56]. Ibid.,
pp. 2–3.
[57]. Clarke
Review, op. cit., p. 364.
[58]. Ibid.,
p. 363.
[59]. Sutherland,
op. cit., pp. 6–8.
[60]. Ibid.,
pp. 3–4.
[61]. Clarke
Review, op. cit., pp. 366–368; Sutherland, op. cit., p. 10.
[62]. Clarke
Review, op. cit., p. 365.
[63]. See
Clarke Review, op. cit. and Sutherland, op. cit., for background.
[64]. Sutherland,
op. cit., p. 9.
[65]. Clarke
Review, op. cit., p. 369.
[66]. Ibid.,
p. 369.
[67]. Ibid.,
p. 504.
[68]. D
Vale (Minister for Veterans’ Affairs), Response
to the Clarke Committee Report on Veterans' Entitlements, speech, 2
March 2004.
[69]. Ibid.
[70]. A
Griffin (Minister for Veterans’ Affairs), Government
kicks off Clarke review: nuclear veterans and BCOF a priority, media
release, 9 September 2008.
[71]. A
Griffin (Minister for Veterans’ Affairs), Government
delivers response to Clarke Review of Veterans' Entitlements, media
release, 14 May 2010.
[72]. Sutherland,
p. 14.
[73]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[74]. Ibid.,
p. 10.
[75]. DVA,
‘Overview
of disability pensions and allowances’, Factsheet DP01, DVA, Canberra, 11
April 2017.
[76]. DVA,
‘Disability
pension and war widow(er’s) pension rates and allowances’, Factsheet DP43,
DVA, Canberra, 11 April 2017.
[77]. Guide to
the Assessment of Rates of Veterans’ Pensions (No. 2) 2016.
[78]. DVA,
‘Special
and intermediate rates’, Factsheet DP29, DVA, Canberra, 15 November 2016.
[79]. Ibid.
[80]. Ibid.
[81]. The
Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans’ Pensions can be used to
assess physical, functional and other medical impairments as well as the effect
of those medical impairments on aspects of a person’s lifestyle such as their
personal relationships and activities such as domestic routines or recreation. Guide to
the Assessment of Rates of Veterans’ Pensions (No. 2) 2016; DVA, ‘Extreme
disablement adjustment’, Factsheet DP30, DVA, Canberra, 24 November 2016.
[82]. Review
of Military Compensation Arrangements, Report
to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs: volume 2: detailed analysis,
DVA, Canberra, 2011, p. 29
[83]. Ibid.
[84]. Ibid.
[85]. Ibid.
[86]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill
2017, p. 14.
[87]. Review
of Military Compensation Arrangements, op. cit., p. 30.
[88]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill
2017, p. 14.
[89]. Senate
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, ‘Inquiry
into the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017’,
The Senate, 2017.
[90]. Senate
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Veterans’
Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017, The Senate,
13 June 2017, [p. 1].
[91]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 6, 2017, The Senate, Canberra, 14 June 2017, p. 74.
[92]. A
Rishworth, ‘Second
reading speech: Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill
2017’, House of Representatives, Debates, proof, 1 June 2017,
p. 21.
[93]. W
Snowdon, ‘Second
reading speech: Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill
2017’, House of Representatives, Debates, proof, 1 June 2017,
p. 35
[94]. N
Xenophon, Finally,
some justice for Australia's Nuclear Test Veterans, media release, 8
May 2017.
[95]. S
Ludlam, Great
win for nuclear veterans, but still more to do, media release, 8 May
2017.
[96]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill
2017, p. ii.
[97]. Ibid.
[98]. Ibid.,
pp. iii–v.
[99]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report,
5, 2017, The Senate, Canberra, 14 June 2017, p. 50.
[100]. Australian
Government, Portfolio
budget statements 2017–18: budget related paper no. 1.4B: Defence Portfolio
(Department of Veterans’ Affairs), p. 18.
[101]. Clarke
Review, op. cit., p. 485.
[102]. Howard,
op. cit.
[103]. D
Tehan, ‘Second
reading speech: Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill
2017’, House of Representatives, Debates, proof,
24 May 2017, p. 15.
[104]. DVA,
‘Veterans’
pharmaceutical reimbursement scheme’, Factsheet HSV132, DVA, Canberra, 22 March
2017.
[105]. DVA,
‘Veterans supplement’,
Factsheet IS18, DVA, Canberra, 20 September 2016.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.