Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

I also support the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. While I will not speak for too long, so as not to delay it, I want to make some points. Firstly, I want to compliment the member for Bruce, Alan Griffin, who came in after the last election as the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs. He has moved around Australia in a very energetic way, consulting with the veterans community. He has been to groups that I have not even heard of, and I have been heavily involved with the veterans community for some time. Right across the length and breadth of Australia he has listened and spoken to them as he has consulted with them. I think our policy on indexation which was announced the other day—it is just one policy and there will be others before the election—is a very good policy, being well reasoned and well considered as a response to concerns put to us by the veterans community. I compliment Alan and the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Kevin Rudd, on their response to this issue, an issue which has been going on for a long time.

I do not want to criticise the government, but I do want to make one little point. I think Alan Griffin’s response to this budget has been very gracious. He has been very positive and very objective. I did look for a little bit more from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs when our policy was announced. I thought the minister’s response was very juvenile. He knows that this issue of indexation has been an issue of contention in the veterans community for a long time. That we moved to address it was a good initiative, and I think the minister could have and should have recognised this. The minister has come to the portfolio at a fortuitous time, at a time leading up to an election when the government is flush with money. The government know they have got a difficult election in front of them and they are prepared to spend money. So I wish that the minister’s response could have been a little more mature and a little more gracious. I will always speak critically of the minister when I think there is a need to, but, like this morning, I will also compliment him when there is a need to.

I have had a number of emails following the budget and the announcement of our policy just a few days ago. I want to thank the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia for the tremendous work that they have done over a long period of time. This particular ex-service organisation is not always in favour with government or opposition. It puts first and foremost the welfare of its members as its top priority, it is fearless in prosecuting the objects and aims of its membership and it is fearless in the way it goes about advocating for and supporting its members. Sometimes it stands on individuals’ toes, but it is a good ESO and I simply wish there were a few more ESOs and individuals out there in the veterans community who could take a leaf from its book.

I want to thank the federation for the fact that it put out a press release today thanking both the government and the opposition for their responses to veterans issues. Its members are not happy, and I understand why they are not happy. They are not happy with the fact that this payment of $50 falls some $42 short of what they have lost since 1997 when indexation was taken away from the pension, and they make that point. But, by the same token, they congratulate the government on making this payment. They also congratulate the Australian Labor Party on their policy of indexation. I think it is important for the veterans community when they argue for something, even if they do not get all that they want, to at least acknowledge it. They do not have to tug their forelock or anything like that, but sometimes it helps to acknowledge that there has been at least some movement, which I think encourages ministers and shadow ministers and other members of parliament to be more enthusiastic in the way that they respond in addressing some of these issues. I want to congratulate Tim McCombe and Graham Walker from the Vietnam Veterans Federation. As I said, I think they do a great job.

I have had a number of other emails. I am not going to refer to them all. I want to refer to one particular email because I think its writer makes some good points. It has come from a fellow by the name of Ron King. He has this to say:

Well we have been thrown the keep quite crumbs again. What a disgrace to the Government of the day. We have been treated as the poor seconds compared to the other benefits given to other groups.

He makes two particular points that are the basis for these comments. Firstly, he says:

We look at the funeral allowance of $2000. That buys the plot. Where is the rest of the costs coming from?

This once again is discrimination compared to the MRCA funeral benefits. Surely a Veteran of any war is entitled to the dignity of leaving this world in a respected manner. The new grant for burial is not good enough.

It is an improvement—we all acknowledge that. We appreciate it and we thank the government for it. But the point he makes is a good one. Under the military compensation scheme the grant available for a funeral benefit is some $4,890, just under $5,000. Given that the grant for a funeral under the military compensation scheme is just under $5,000, why is a similar grant under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act only $2,000? That does not make sense to me, and I would really like the minister or someone else in the government to tell me why this differentiation exists. Once again this will be a bone of contention. Mr King goes on to say this:

The $50 hand out to the TPI is a small catch up of the fallout from years of neglect.

To the Veteran community, once again they have missed the point here, and that is the SR—

special rate—

pension needs to have a decent means of quarterly adjustment. Not just crumbs thrown at the will of a Government.

This point is well made, and I want to finish on this note. Not only have Labor addressed the issue of indexation; we have also sought to take the funding of veterans pensions out of the political arena. Our policy of indexation means that it will happen on a regular basis and that it will not be subject to the whim of the government of the day, nor to the whim of the minister of the day.

For some 10 years the veteran community has suffered because of a political decision taken by the Howard government back in 1997. The government have now repaid to the veterans who are on these entitlements about half of that which they have taken away from them over that period. But they have made, in my view, a major mistake. They have left this issue fairly and squarely in the political arena. Who is to say, should this government be returned, that they will not do the same thing in the future to the veteran community—that is, screw them financially and not provide them with the regular indexation to which they are entitled to ensure that their pensions retain the value that they should in the community? Who is to say that they simply will not screw the veteran community again and not allow any increases for a period and then, when they face a difficult election, when they know that they are coming from behind, when they know that they are on the nose, suddenly throw a handful of money at them and say, ‘Look, here’s some money, we are looking after you; support us’? I hope that the veteran community see through this. I hope that the government might reconsider their policy and the fact that they have short-changed every TPI veteran in this nation by some $42 and that they might give some serious consideration to taking this issue out of the political forum.

I conclude by saying that I am very disappointed that those on EDAs, who are some of the most disabled veterans in Australia and are some of the most disabled people in our community, will not benefit from this budget at all. I think that is a shame. That decision will ensure that the EDA community continues to suffer a lack of fairness. I commend the bill.

See this speech in context