Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—At the request of the member for Warringah, I move:

(1)

Schedule 3, page 20 (line 2) to page 23 (line 24) - Opposition to oppose.

(2)

Schedule 5, page 32 (lines 2-13) - Opposition to oppose.

I point out to the House that these amendments relate to the sections of the bill relating to the seniors health card and to the eligibility for partner service pension. The use of the TFN—tax file number—is a backdoor method of monitoring payments and income for seniors received and is done to ensure that they are within the income test. The financial impact on individual seniors, if they lose it, is not measured in the bill and does not take into account the fact that, because seniors are eligible for the seniors health card, they are entitled to other Commonwealth and state benefits ranging from cheaper medicines to cheaper services. If they lose that card, they can lose other benefits. And if the changes to the adjusted taxable income definition later apply to the card then this will have a significant impact on many self-funded retirees who will no longer be eligible for that card and the added benefits. The possible cancellation of the card should cardholders not provide their TFN within 28 days is not a reasonable time frame and the government needs to clarify what it means. Indeed, this amendment would simply have the effect of deleting from the bill those sections which would in fact penalise seniors who are currently holders of that card.

The second amendment relates to schedule 5, page 32 of the bill, lines 2 to 13. Again, opposition to this, as expressed in the amendment, will have the effect of deleting the provisions from the bill that raise the age limit for a male spouse of a veteran to 60 and from 50 to 58½ for a female spouse. As I said in the second reading debate, this is totally unreasonable and the wording that is used by the government—that this will bring it in line with social security—is an attack on veterans. The opposition stands very firm on the principle that veterans entitlements must never ever be considered to be welfare payments, and any idea in the language of this bill that we are bringing things ‘in line’ with welfare payments is an insult to veterans. From our point of view, the nation has a contract with our veterans: because they serve the nation in uniform, we say, in that contractual sense, we will always look after them through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and we will not take away entitlements, which we are doing in other parts of the budget. There is an underlying subtle attack on veterans that underlines the whole of this budget process. These two amendments will delete from the bill, if we are successful, the provisions that will raise the age limit for spouses of veterans to receive the service pension. As I said in the second reading debate, in one hit the time they will have to wait for an entitlement goes up by 8.5 years—nearly a decade. If this bill is passed, they will have been entitled earlier. Of course the seniors health card is valued enormously by seniors in our society.

As I have said all along, this government talks continually—every sentence it utters—about working families. Well veterans and other seniors who are retired fall outside its definition. This is a government that only works for one section of the community and leaves seniors and veterans out in the cold.

See this speech in context