Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Deputy Leader of the House) (12:44): I rise to make some comments in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and highlight that the budget released only a matter of weeks ago provides this government’s positive plans for the future. It gives a clear choice as well between our approach of investing in small and medium-sized businesses, investing in jobs for the future and relieving some of the tax burden on Australians, and the Australian Labor Party’s approach, which is to tax people higher and put a handbrake on the economy.
This is our plan. It’s our plan for the future, and it also provides a great level of investment in the regions. In the budget, we outlined how we would encourage hardworking Australians and reward them through tax relief; how we’d work with the business community to help them to invest and create more jobs, providing that certainty and confidence they need; how we’d also guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on, particularly in health and education; how we’d keep Australians safe with our strong border protection policies and defence policies; and how we’d ensure that the government continues to live within its means.
In Gippsland, I must say the budget has been well received—in particular the welcome announcement of $132 million for the final stage of the Princes Highway duplication project. This is a project that has enjoyed bipartisan support over many years now at both state and federal level, and I’m appealing to the Victorian state government to continue that level of bipartisan support by finding its 20 per cent of the final funding which will be required to finish the job. There’s $132 million now on the table from the Commonwealth and $33 million required from the state government to finalise this project. I must say the state government would have to be bonkers not to stump up $33 million to finish the work. We’re all committed to having a better and safer Princes Highway, and it’s been one of those great projects which have seen local jobs created—so a benefit there—and have seen benefits from improving road safety and reducing road trauma, a strong benefit in the community, but also a longer term benefit of improving productivity, allowing us to get our products to market more readily, and obviously the longer term safety implications for the people of Gippsland—but not only the people of Gippsland but also the people who choose to travel to our region. We’re passionate about increasing our visitor economy in Gippsland, and the more work we can do to improve our road and rail connectivity the more likely it is that we’ll see jobs flow through the tourism sector.
The budget also included an important program, the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. As a former minister in the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio, I was working with my department and state governments on such a program, and I want to congratulate the current minister for delivering on that promise. It will complement the existing programs around Roads to Recovery, the road Black Spot Program and the Bridges Renewal Program, along with the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. All those programs provide opportunities for investment in better and safer roads around Australia but particularly in regional Australia, where a disproportionate number of people are killed and injured on our roads on an annual and a daily basis. So I’m very pleased to see the investments in road and rail infrastructure in the budget and am looking forward to working with my constituents to make sure that Gippsland receives a fair share of those funding commitments.
In my current portfolio, I must say the veterans’ affairs budget has been well received, largely, across the sector. I believe that in the veteran community there’s an assessment that in the reforms that have been started by my predecessor, Dan Tehan, and after him Michael McCormack for a brief period of time, we’re heading in the right direction but there’s more to be done. The announcement in the budget of an additional $100 million, on top of the reform agenda which was already underway, has been well received.
I’m determined as a new minister to make sure that we’re putting veterans first but, perhaps just as important, to make sure that we’re putting veterans’ families first as well. The families are a critical part of the defence story and the veterans’ story in our nation. We need families to support our veterans once they’ve finished their service. Obviously, once they’re in the armed forces, whether it’s the Navy, the Army or the Air Force, having the support of families and friends is so critical. So I’m very pleased with the investment in veterans and their families announced in this year’s budget, in excess of $11 billion, which is a sizeable investment in the families and in the veterans themselves, who have served our nation with great distinction. There’s a large range of activities that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is undertaking in consultation and partnership with our stakeholder organisations.
I must say, given the opportunity today, that I’m very pleased with the appointment of our new secretary, Liz Cosson. Liz comes to the job with perhaps the most extraordinary credentials of any person to apply for a senior Public Service role, in the sense that she has many generations of family history of service in the military. She has served with great distinction herself. She has worked in the Public Service for several years and has been right at the centre of the reform program that’s been underway at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I wish her well in that role and look forward to working with her.
As I indicated, there are some challenges still. While we are heading in the right direction, there are also challenges for us in the veterans’ space. Two of the key areas I’m particularly keen to see us progress in the weeks, months and years ahead relate to the transition of military personnel out of the armed forces and the mental health of our veterans. The best support we can provide our service men and women is the economic independence that comes with securing a job. Making the transition from a military career into civilian life can be difficult for some. In the order of 5,000 to 6,000 Australians do it every year. The majority do it quite successfully, but there are others who require additional support. That is something we must continue to work on as a nation.
We are continuing to provide job opportunities for veterans by contributing more than $8 million to the Prime Minister’s veterans program and ensuring the business community recognises the benefits of employing a veteran. When it comes to employing a veteran, I make this very important point: this is not about charity or giving to a good cause; hiring a veteran will be good for your business. These are people who have a proven record of hard work, discipline and patriotism. They have learnt skills in the military which are easily transferable to a range of civilian careers. As people who respect their service and have some level of understanding of that service, we should do everything we can to help them transition successfully from a military career to a civilian life. We want to encourage our veterans to make that transition well, and support those who may be struggling.
One area I mentioned a moment ago which has been brought to the attention of many members in this place is the mental health of our veterans. I thank members on both sides who have reached out to me since I’ve taken over this role to present to me case studies in their own communities of individuals they’re concerned about. I also thank the shadow minister for bringing to my attention the feedback she receives from her consultation with ex-service organisations. This is one area of public policy where I have no doubt that we can have complete bipartisanship. We can work together to provide the best possible services and treatment outcomes and support for our veterans struggling with mental health issues.
We currently provide free mental health care to anyone who has served one full day in the Australian Defence Force. But that’s not well understood. I would suggest that some people who would benefit from that free mental health care may not be aware that they’re entitled to it. It is as a challenge for us as members to promote that within our communities, to work with ex-service organisations to reach out to our communities and ensure that all veterans are aware they can get support when they need it. We’ll also be extending this to all reservists who have rendered disaster relief or border protection services or been seriously injured during a training exercise. I think this is a positive step. I again thank those opposite and members on my own side of this chamber who have reached out to me to provide more insights into the way that we could do additional work, particularly in our regional areas, to make sure those services are getting to people when they need it the most.
In the time that I have left I would like to make a few comments in relation to some health matters—some in relation to the budget and some more generally in relation to how we train the health workforce in our regional areas. Despite the claims of those opposite, the health budget under this government is at record levels. It’s growing and it is at record levels. There was an important announcement in the budget of a $95 million investment in relation to the Murray-Darling Medical School. This is great news. It has been very well received in those communities and certainly by the local members who are directly impacted by it. It is part of the government’s plan to attract and retain a rural health workforce and give younger people in regional areas the opportunity to train for their health careers in their own communities.
For families in regional areas, it is an incredible cost when a student has to leave to study in the city. There are significant costs associated with living away from home to undertake tertiary studies. The Murray-Darling Medical School is a good step in the right direction to help alleviate some of those costs and encourage more young people to practice medicine in regional areas. If you can attract a regional person into a medical career, they are more likely to go back and practice in a regional location. And if they have had some training in a regional area, they are more likely to go back and practice in a regional location.
But I would raise a cautionary note. It relates to Monash University and its behaviour in Gippsland over the last decade. I am concerned about the direction Monash University has taken in Gippsland. I have a question about how committed Monash University is to the Gippsland area and to regional Victoria more generally. I have raised these concerns directly with Monash over the last couple of years but I would pose this question: is Monash University fair dinkum about Gippsland and about the hopes and aspirations of regional students? The recent history would say suggest that it is not fair dinkum about the future of its services in the Gippsland region.
I want to refer to correspondence from Dr Andrew Greenhill, a highly regarded educator in my electorate, to provide a bit of background to these comments regarding Monash. Funding was provided by the Howard government to promote a pathway for regional students to study medicine in a regional location, at the Gippsland Medical School. I fear that Monash, through its behaviour in recent years, has effectively blocked that pathway for many Gippslanders. Comments from Dr Green support me in my concerns. He wrote:
Until recently, young people in Gippsland had a pathway to medicine which seemingly offered the great benefits that the Murray-Darling Medical School’s network is expected to deliver.
He went on to say:
When Monash University withdrew from tertiary education in Gippsland, they retained the medical school. Monash University has since changed the eligibility criteria for entry into the medical degree, stipulating that students must do an undergraduate degree at a Melbourne campus of Monash University. It should be noted that Federation University, since its inception, has offered a degree in biomedical sciences at the Gippsland campus. The single major impediment to having a successful pathway for regional students to enter medical school in our region is an unjust and unjustifiable policy put in place by Monash University that states that students must study an undergraduate Monash degree, and thus live in metropolitan Melbourne for three years, to gain entry into a rural medical school.
As I said, I have raised these concerns with senior levels of Monash University in the past. What it means for a Gippsland student who is very successful at secondary school level and achieves the marks required to undertake a potential career in medicine must do their medical science degree with Monash at Clayton and cannot access their local campus of Federation University. And only then, after they’ve had that three years away from their hometown and that support that’s provided to them, can they apply to go to Gippsland Medical School in Churchill.
I don’t think it’s good enough. In 2018, surely Monash could work with Federation University or other regional based universities and establish a pathway which doesn’t require students from Gippsland to pack up their whole lives and move to Clayton whether they want to or not. I am completely relaxed if that’s their choice but, under the current model that Monash has implemented in Gippsland, they have no choice. There is no pathway for a Gippsland student to remain in Gippsland or Latrobe Valley, perhaps study at the Churchill campus and move on to the Gippsland Medical School—also at the Churchill campus.
So I appeal to Monash to think very seriously about the direction in which it is taking its medical training services in the Gippsland region. With that in mind, I’m keeping a very watchful eye on the Monash University review of the School of Rural Health which has been announced. I’m not optimistic, given Monash’s previous decision and the negative view they’ve had on Gippsland, that this review is going to be positive for our region. Health professionals in Gippsland are very concerned that any change in the delivery of the School of Rural Health will impact on the development of staff and students in our community. So I would appeal to the Monash University executive team to think very seriously about the question I asked before: are you fair dinkum about providing professional services to the people of Gippsland? Are you fair dinkum about supporting the hopes and aspirations of Gippsland students who wants to pursue a medical career?
In conclusion, this budget has been well received in Gippsland. From an infrastructure perspective, it has been extraordinarily popular, particularly around the Princes Highway investment. I would encourage the state government to find its 20 per cent funding to finish the project.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I acknowledge the member for Grayndler’s contribution. If he had been here earlier and listened to the whole speech, he would know how glowingly I spoke of his contribution to infrastructure investment in Gippsland and the Princes Highway. (Time expired)
Previous Fragment Next Fragment