Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008, I first want to speak to the part of it dealing with the immunisation provisions, particularly as they apply to adopted children. During the last parliament, I chaired the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, and we brought down a most important report entitled Overseas adoption in Australia.

One of the recommendations that we made—and I am very pleased to see that it was referred to in the second reading speech—was that:

The Minister for Family and Community Services amend the eligibility criteria for the maternity immunisation allowance in the case of children adopted from overseas so the eligibility period is two years after the child’s entry to Australia.

The reason we made that recommendation is that obviously some children were adopted when they were older, and also there were some children for whom the adoption actually took place in another country before they came to Australia, such as those coming from China. It was a great inequity—one of a number that we identified in that report.

We also made some very serious recommendations to make it easier for Australian couples to go through the process of being vetted and having their files sent to countries where we have adoption agreements. We recommended that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade take over the negotiations of adoption agreements between Australia and other countries instead of the piecemeal way in which this process had been conducted for years, whereby various states had different responsibilities for various countries or, more specifically, for particular orphanages or agencies within that country. It was a most inefficient and unfair way of dealing with things. The degree of fear that was encountered by many people who were wishing to become adopting parents was such that some of them pulled out of giving evidence to our inquiry for the simple reason that they thought their file might be lost or pushed under the desk and that they would not be assessed in a timely way.

There is a great yearning of parents and would-be parents in Australia to give love and comfort to children whom they adopt from overseas. The committee was of the very firm view that adoption was a legitimate way of forming or adding to a family but that this was against what it found existed in the bureaucracy, which was an anti-adoption attitude. Hopefully, largely from the former government’s acceptance of this report and also from this government’s implementation of many of the sections of the report, we will see those children who are able to come to this country have love in their lives and an expectation of a good life fulfilled.

I am very warmly reminded of the words of one of our youngest witnesses, who was aged 14. She came from Ethiopia. Her testimony was, very simply, how wonderful it was for her to be in Australia and to be loved. Had she remained in Ethiopia, her life expectancy would have been 39 years of age, but here, in Australia, she was able to have a long life expectancy. She was also able to choose a career that could venture from a model to a pop idol to a chef. She was a remarkable young lady and had formed wonderful friendships. She is a splendid Australian. That story is, I think, one that we want to see repeated. So I am very pleased to see that provision included in this legislation.

When I read the title of the bill—the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008—I see not one word relating to veterans. Yet this bill is implementing a harsh withdrawal of veterans entitlements. When I was shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, I found the provision for this in the budget papers, hidden away in the hope that people might not notice it. The provision that is being made law in this legislation will take away the service pension of a partner or spouse of a veteran where the veteran and their spouse remain married but might be living apart for reasons that are not illness related. I have heard some heartfelt descriptions of how this will impact on people’s lives. The spouse or partner of a veteran will lose their service pension when 12 months have expired or when the veteran enters into, as the current legislation states, ‘a marriage-like relationship’. However, when the same-sex legislation is passed, this legislation will also include a veteran moving into a de facto relationship. De facto relationships will encompass same-sex relationships as well as heterosexual relationships or marriage-like relationships.

Last night, in a speech during the second reading debate on the same-sex legislation, I said that both sides of parliament acknowledged that marriage holds a special place in our society, and I also unashamedly said that marriage should be discriminated in favour of. That is not to say that questions of financial fairness and equity should not be dealt with. But the fundamental point needs to be stated and upheld. Once this legislation becomes law and once the same-sex legislation start date occurs, which is 1 July 2009, you could literally have a situation where, for a wife of 30 years who is still married to a veteran and where the veteran, for whatever reason, establishes himself either in a de facto heterosexual relationship or a de facto homosexual relationship, the wife of 30 years would lose her service pension and the new partner, be they of the same sex or of the opposite sex, would be eligible to take that pension. That is not fair, it is not reasonable and it is certainly a whittling away of veterans’ entitlements.

Let me read part of a letter that I have received. This woman writes:

My husband is 63 and I am now 61½. In the recent issue of the Veterans Affairs newspaper sent to all recipients of benefits from the Department of Vets Affairs, it was advised on page 4 that legislation is proposed to cease payment of the partner service pension to separated partners of veterans and that those pensions already being paid will cease from the 1st January 2009. This is the only notice I have received to alert me to this fact.

I feel I am being cast aside with no consideration for my age and without any acknowledgment of my contribution to the care and support of my veteran husband over so many years, through the most difficult of times and circumstances at great personal and financial cost.

We are still married and we are still close. We are just unable to continue to live together. I firmly believe that my individual circumstances are what they are because of the fact that my husband served his country when called upon to do so.

In April of 2007 I was interviewed personally for the Australian Vietnam Veterans Family Health Study, an epidemiological study of the health and welfare of Australian veterans and their families. This research is designed to look at what impact service in Vietnam had for their families.

She has participated, yet she has been jettisoned. Because she is 61, she will not be eligible to move to the social welfare pension—the old age pension. She continues:

My income without the partner service pension and concessions will not be sufficient to maintain a quality of life while honouring the financial commitments that were made whilst I fully expected the income from the service pension to continue.

This is a woman who says, as I read out, that her circumstances are because of the service that her veteran husband gave for our country.

I made a strong statement as shadow minister that we in the opposition believe we have a contract with our veterans. We say, ‘You men and women who serve our country and put your lives on the line, we will look after you for the rest of your lives.’ That is a contract that we make. It is not welfare. What we give to them is an entitlement. Only our men and women in service uniform can be ordered into a situation where they know death is inevitable—not police, not firemen, not all the other people in civilian life; only our service personnel. We owe them a great debt. The term ‘veteran’ is one to be revered. It is something that is earned. Therefore, after the Prime Minister made the statement before the election that veterans would not be worse off under Labor, he has lied to those people by taking away these entitlements in this legislation. Earlier he took away an entitlement for a female partner of a veteran to be eligible for the service pension at age 50. In one leap that was put up to 58½ and for men up to 60. And it will continue to rise to bring it in line with social security.

There are people around who want to see veterans entitlements rolled into social welfare. We stand firm against that. Yet what we are seeing is entitlements being morphed into social security. In Budget Paper No. 2 this particular change to the law was said to originally represent a saving to the government of $77 million over four years. That was read down to $39 million because a great proportion of those people would be moved onto social security. The entitlement is morphed into social security. There are those who are not eligible to be moved onto those entitlements, and so they do not know how they are going to cope—as with the person whose letter I just read out.

The estimated saving to the government according to the financial statement in the explanatory memorandum is now being pushed up to $40 million over four years. But there is a little concession from the earlier amendment that was so punitive to the veteran community. On the question of no longer being entitled to a partner service pension at the age of 50, the explanatory memorandum states 50 will be the eligible age for:

… partners of veterans who are in receipt of the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or who have … 80 or more impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The Veterans’ Entitlements Act disability pension rates affected by this measure are:

• general rate disability pension that is increased by an amount specified in any of the items 1 to 6 of the table in subsection 27(1),
• extreme disablement adjustment disability pension;
• intermediate rate disability pension; and
• temporary special rate disability pension.

That is so restricted that the cost to the budget is $1.2 million over four years. In other words, the saving that was set out in Budget Paper No. 2, which if my memory serves me was in the vicinity of $33 million over four years, is now being adjusted by $1.2 million. In other words, the vast number of people who were affected remain affected. We put up an amendment to negate the changing of the age from 50 to 58½ for women and 60 for men for that earlier legislation. The government did not accept our amendment.

I note now that the new shadow minister for veterans’ affairs has moved a pious amendment condemning:

… the government’s stubborn determination to insist that from 1 January 2009 partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached the age for the age pension, will have their partner service pension eligibility cease 12 months after being separated or immediately if the veteran enters a marriage-like relationship …

I do hope that we move a stronger amendment along the way, because this is taking away veterans entitlements.

When I speak about the duty and the obligation that we have to those who have served our nation, one group of veterans whom we treated abominably were Vietnam veterans—veterans who found that their wives at home would not be served in shops, who found that their children would be bullied in the playground because their father was serving in Vietnam, who came home but would never put on their resume that they had served. I remember the incident when a young soldier was reported as having been killed and one of the anti-war protesters rang the family and said he got what he deserved and threw red paint over the house. The stories are horrendous. When you talk to the vets, you know how bad it was. New Zealand has apologised to their Vietnam vets, and I believe we should apologise to our vets here in Australia.

In order for that apology to be meaningful we have to bring out into the light of day how bad it was, how Dr Jim Forbes, who went on to be a Treasurer of this nation under Gough Whitlam, used to rile up the demonstrators to attack our serving personnel. How disgraceful is that? I believe it would not happen in this day and age. The Labor Party wanted to take away their medals. It was just the most appalling set of circumstances, which have to be outed in order that an apology would mean something.

These people suffer today. These are the people, Vietnam vets, who will be immediately impacted by these changes that this government is making—this government, which promised veterans it would not take away entitlements and that veterans would not be worse off. These are the people who will be affected—as are the veterans who are now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, the younger veterans. These are the people that these provisions will impact upon. It is a mean-spirited government that would attack veterans in this way and take away their entitlements. As I said, I do believe particularly that we owe our Vietnam veterans.

Thank you for that note, Member for Aston. One of my colleagues has said that I said ‘Jim Forbes’, who was a very honourable minister in the coalition. I do apologise for making that error. Of course, it was Jim Cairns I was speaking of.

As I conclude my remarks on this bill, it is with great pleasure that I see the report on overseas adoptions accepted and legislated for. But it is with a great sense of sadness that I see entitlements for our veterans being taken away and see that, for those who will get some sort of benefit, they will now simply be social welfare beneficiaries.

See this speech in context