[Peetwo]

Sen Hinch 20 June '18: On Martin Rollins v DVA - 7:30 report.

Via Australian Senate:

---

Department of Veterans' Affairs




Senator HINCH (Victoria) (13:35): I want to go back to question time yesterday when I put several questions to defence minister Payne, representing the latest Minister for Veterans' Affair, Darren Chester. He is probably the fourth or fifth in as many years. My question concerned the case of former paratrooper Martin Rollins. He withdrew from the military after suffering a spinal injury. I made the point that, as an election promise, I would not neglect country Victoria. So I make frequent trips to regional and rural areas to talk to the mayors, councillors and the local police officers, and I always make a point of going to the RSL club in time for The Ode and to talk to returned diggers.

Recently, I did a Q&A with 50 veterans at the Ballarat RSL and heard some horror stories, not about what happened overseas, not about what happened in the war zones where they put their lives on the line for their country, but about what happened after they got home, after they got back here. I told them the brutal truth about the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I told them they had to regard the DVA as the enemy, because it treats you as the enemy. The case of former paratrooper Martin Rollins is, sadly, a classic case; it's not an unusual one. This shameful episode over how this serviceman was treated was featured on the ABC's 7.30 Report the other night. They story claimed that DVA deliberately deleted an incapacity policy for self-employed vets so that the pen-pushers could deny the compensation claim of veteran Rollins, who had to retire as a paratrooper after damaging his spine. Yesterday, in question time, Senator Payne said:

… the Department of Veterans' Affairs itself denies the specific allegation that it removed or cancelled policies to deny veterans their lawful entitlements, and that was one of the aspects which was raised in the program.

Well, somebody is telling porkies. Somebody in the department has misled Minister Payne. I don't say that lightly, because I have proof.

Between 2009 and 2010, Martin Rollins's lawyer wrote to the DVA eight times. The lawyer wanted his case resolved on the basis of the then current policy outlined in what is known as the Incapacity Handbook. After those eight letters, on 16 August, an internal email from Veterans' Affairs—an incriminating, self-damning email, which I have seen—was widely distributed. The email said: 'Following discussions with the business area, 12 July 2010, the Incapacity Handbook paragraph 32.3.5 has been amended to remove any reliance that Rollins or his representative could place on it for the purpose of his outstanding claim.' I have not only a copy of that email but the cc'd list. It was sent on 16 August and cc'd in with a DVA chief operating officer, the executive PA to the DVA Secretary, the national director of the legal section, the national director of DVA policy, one senior lawyer and, most telling, the manager of the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service. If the policy hadn't been 'removed' or 'cancelled', as the minister claimed in question time yesterday, why such a wide distribution list? It proves, despite the denial the department gave the defence minister for question time, that they did tamper with the Incapacity Handbook to thwart Mr Rollins's legitimate claim. Not only did they tactically delete part of the policy that would have helped the ex-serviceman but it gets worse. Over 10 years the DVA engaged three external law firms, the Government Solicitor and a forensic accountant to fight Martin Rollins's claim. You have to ask: how much did it cost the taxpayer to persecute and destroy the quality of life of a man whose only crime is that he served his country? In fact, during one meeting Mr Rollins asked one of these government outside lawyers how much they thought they'd been paid since it all started. He asked if it was over $100,000. They responded, 'Of course—probably much more.'

Speaking of emails again, an email discovered by Rollins through FOI in 2008 openly called Mr Rollins's incapacity 'debatable', suggesting that he could have been faking it and feigning injury. The man has a shattered L5 disc in his back. Centrelink did the same calculation as the veterans' affairs department, and they came to the conclusion that Rollins was entitled to financial assistance based on his incapacity. It took them just 14 days in July 2010. Centrelink told Rollins they were baffled that his case was taking so long at Veterans' Affairs.

This treatment of a struggling ex-serviceman, in my view, was despicable and unconscionable. For the DVA to be still trying to pull the wool over a defence minister's eyes and trying to publicly whitewash despicable, vengeful behaviour, I believe, is truly appalling. Sometimes you wonder if public servants in that department even know that the V in DVA stands for 'veterans'. As I told those veterans in Ballarat, to get anywhere you must treat the DVA as the enemy, because they regard you as the enemy.

I have a final indicative point: Martin Rollins didn't want this to become a story. He says 'I was just incapacitated. I was just reaching out for help.' And the DVA was not there.

MTF...P2