Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 provides a one-off, non-taxable bonus payment of $500 to each person qualified for utilities allowance or seniors concession allowance on budget night. Labor supports this one-off bonus payment to these concession card holders because they certainly deserve this money, and many of them are struggling to make ends meet. The bill will provide $500 before the end of this financial year to all age pensioners and to those self-funded retirees earning less than $50,000 for singles or $80,000 for couples combined.

We certainly support this initiative. We know that there have been significant increases in the cost of living, and I am sure that, when all members of parliament are out in our shopping centres talking with constituents, they hear on a regular basis how difficult it is for seniors, in particular, to make ends meet given the ongoing rises in food prices. In the last quarter, in March food prices rose by 4.6 per cent. This was particularly due to increases in fruit prices, which rose by almost 15 per cent. It is not surprising that we often hear from seniors in our electorates about how difficult it is for them to manage. The price of petrol and other very important utilities and basics that people need just to manage from week to week have also risen.

We also know that our seniors provide the backbone for many of the voluntary organisations in our community and spend a lot of their own money, especially on petrol, going to help out those in even greater need in our community, visiting and providing support for the very aged and for others who are on their own. This $500 payment will provide that extra bit of help that I am sure the recipients will appreciate. The payment will also go to those of service pension age receiving, as I mentioned, the utilities allowance or the seniors concessional allowance and to those receiving the mature age allowance, the widows allowance and the partner allowance. All of those people will receive the payment before the end of June.

This bill also provides payments to a wide range of  carers. We know that in many circumstances they too are working extremely hard to care for their loved ones. A payment of $1,000 will be made to carers who are currently receiving the carer payment. Recipients of the carer allowance will receive a payment of $600 for every eligible care receiver. In addition to the $600 carer allowance bonus, recipients of the carer allowance who also receive the wife pension or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs partner service pension will receive a payment of $1,000. The last three budgets have provided similar one-off lump sum bonuses to eligible carers. We certainly welcome these payments because we know that, as with seniors, many carers are finding it difficult to make ends meet—and, of course, it is very hard for them to find time to be able to earn any money. We know that they also have significant extra costs because of their caring responsibilities.

I am sure that I speak for all members of parliament when I say that many carers feel that their work is undervalued. I think people often feel that way because, in the vast majority of cases, their work is carried out behind closed doors, in people’s homes. I do not think they feel that they are well understood. Also, an increasing number of women aged between 35 and 54—often called the ‘sandwich generation’—are being asked to provide most of the care needed by their children and by frail older people who are, most often, related to them. We do have a rapidly ageing population in Australia, so we can only expect that the number of people who will need to be cared for in this way will increase. There are about 2.6 million carers in Australia. I hope that the support that this bill will provide to them will give them the recognition that they deserve and that bit of extra relief to help them meet the heavy load that they carry.

A major study done in 2006, called the AMP.NATSEM study, found that the average carer is $5,600 worse off each year compared with someone with no caring responsibilities. We also know that one in every seven Australians is providing primary or informal care for an older frail relative or one with a disability. As I mentioned before, most of that burden is still falling on women. The report also goes into the expectation that these responsibilities will increase as the population ages. This will happen at the same time that we see an increase in the need for women to participate in the workforce, which is also related to the ageing of the population. The responsibilities that those women will have to carry—workforce responsibilities and caring responsibilities for their children and ageing parents—are likely to increase. We also know that carers are more often than not family members and that it is often the case that the carer is an elderly person themselves. I certainly know from my own family’s circumstances that that can be an enormous responsibility as well as a very heavy load. Carers are doing this day in and day out—and often during the night as well when it involves the support of someone who is frail or ill.

The bill also contains a number of measures to support veterans and war widows and widowers, and I want to go through each of those. Schedule 5 of the bill will make one-off payments on 1 January 2007 to Australian former prisoners of war in Europe or their surviving widows. We certainly welcome this initiative. I notice that the Labor shadow minister is at the table, and he will strongly endorse my remarks that this payment is long overdue. Unfortunately, the government left these Australian prisoners of war from Japan and Korea out of the first two ex gratia payments in 2001 and 2004. I am pleased to see that that oversight has now been rectified.

The bill will also increase the maximum funeral benefit from $1,000 to $2,000 for eligible veterans under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Once again, we welcome this initiative. We know—my colleague at the table is very well aware of this—that the funeral benefit has been a longstanding concern in the veterans community, and this initiative is certainly a step in the right direction.

The bill will also increase the veterans disability pension for special rate and intermediate rate recipients by $50 and $25 a fortnight respectively from 3 July 2007. This will benefit around 29,600 veterans who receive either the special rate or the intermediate rate of disability pension because their injuries or diseases related to war or defence service on behalf of Australia limit their earning capacity. Once again, we welcome this catch-up payment. It was needed to address the erosion of these pensions that, under the Howard government, has occurred since 1997. It is unfortunate that the government has not taken this opportunity to fix the indexation of these pensions.

By contrast—and this is a very important contrast between the Howard government and the Labor opposition—Labor has already committed to properly indexing these pensions in the same way that the age pension is indexed. I call on the government to follow Labor’s lead to make sure that these people do not fall behind in the way they have over the last few years. It is unfortunate that the government did not include extreme disablement adjustment pension recipients in this catch-up budget. As I am sure everybody in this House knows, these veterans fought in World War II, Korea and Malaya and suffer from severe disabilities. Unfortunately, it seems that once again they have been ignored by the government.

War widows who claim a pension following the death of their spouse will now receive an additional three months to claim a backdated war widow’s pension. Once again, we think this is a good move. From 1 July 2007, war widows who claim the pension within six months of their spouse’s death will have their pension backdated to the time of death, recognising that the death of a spouse in this situation is extremely difficult. This provision gives our war widows time to come to terms with all the things they need to do following a very painful and difficult event.

Labor have been calling on the government to address the erosion of our most severely disabled war veterans pensions. I want to inform the House about the dimension of the loss that these pensioners have faced because of the government’s refusal to properly index their pensions. Over the last 10 years, because these pensions are only linked to increases in the cost of living, there has in fact been a drop of over $70 a fortnight in the value of the special rate disability pension. That is a very substantial amount for people dependent upon a pension. Similarly, there has been an erosion in the value of the extreme disablement adjustment and intermediate pensions. Once again, I say to the government that, although we do support what is in this bill, it really is high time that the long-term problem of indexation of these pensions is addressed. It is only by addressing the long-term problem and making sure we have proper indexation that veterans will be given the certainty that the value of their payments will be maintained and the dignity of their circumstances will be respected.

As I said, I am very pleased we have indicated that, if we are successful at the next election, a Rudd Labor government will make sure that our most severely disabled war veterans will have their pensions adjusted to take account of not just the cost of living but also the standard of living. A Labor government will make sure that these veterans will no longer have to depend on the government delivering the sorts of ad hoc, catch-up payments that we are debating today. If Labor is successful at the next election, future increases that account for both increases in the cost of living and the standard of living will be automatic under Labor. Indexation is the only long-term solution to maintain the true value of veterans pensions.

In 1997, when the Howard government indexed a range of other pensions, they left out the above general rate disability pensions. Since that time there has been an erosion of the value of these pensions compared to pensions in the broader community—for example, in 1997 the special rate disability pension represented 46.3 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. On the most recent figures available, it now represents only 42.9 per cent. The government provided only partial indexation in 2004, and that was in response to sustained protest from the veteran community. Unfortunately, it was only a bandaid solution, and tonight we are debating another catch-up rather than a long-term solution. We certainly do not want to treat our most severely disabled war veterans in this way. Labor wants to give war veterans security for the future.

To be very specific about what we intend to do: if we are successful at the next election, Labor will restore the value of the special rate disability pension, the intermediate rate and the extreme disablement adjustment pensions by indexing the whole of these pensions to movements in male total average weekly earnings or the consumer price index, whichever is greater. This will benefit more than 43,000 war veterans with disabilities. On current projections, over the first four years after implementation, the recipients of these pensions will be $1,700 better off, with their pensions building to $30 a fortnight more than they would otherwise have been. The announcement certainly concerns the most severely disabled of our war veterans. They include those who fought and served in conflicts including World War II, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, the Gulf War, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we are already seeing veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan needing assistance. As of December 2006, eight soldiers who served in Afghanistan and two from Iraq would be affected by Labor’s commitment. I certainly hope we are able to deliver that increase as a result of being successful at the next election.

As I am sure everybody here knows, our veterans have paid a very high price for their service to our country, and this really is about fixing an injustice. Once again, I want to give credit to our shadow minister. A lot of people at my recent Anzac Day service at the repatriation hospital in Melbourne said to me how grateful they were for the way in which the member for Bruce has been willing to listen and to convince our colleagues about the importance of this measure. I know how much it is appreciated by veterans. I think that would apply not just to people in my electorate but to people right around Australia.

I just want to say in summary that we support these payments. We think that they are very important and we want them to get into the hands of the carers, seniors and veterans as quickly as possible. However, it is unfortunate, given that the bill has been brought in so quickly, that the financial impact statement contained in the explanatory memorandum does not give any indication of departmental costs associated with the payments. I would just say to the minister that when he is summing up this debate—we obviously do not want to hold up the legislation; we think it is very important—these matters nevertheless need to be dealt with properly, because the parliament needs to know about these costs. In this bill, there are also very wide powers given to the minister to make administrative arrangements for these payments by legislative instruments. Once again, I think these issues need to be properly explained when the legislation comes into the parliament. I will finish by reiterating Labor’s strong support for these payments. We know that, for many seniors, carers and veterans, life is pretty tough. It is hard for them to make ends meet, and I know any support will be very gratefully received.

David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, which deals with a very important issue for our community. When I have sent out surveys or stood for long periods of time in shopping centres and spoken to people, I have been given consistent feedback from seniors in our community, who talk to me about the various situations they find themselves in. The thing that strikes me is that there are a range of situations. I have spoken in this House before about the fact that some seniors are doing very well, particularly those who own their own homes in areas that do not have high council rates and where they have access to public transport et cetera, but there are some—perhaps those in Housing Trust homes who do not have access to public transport or those with very high council rates—who, for the same given income, really struggle to put food on the table. I think it is important that at this time, with the budget, we look at any measures we can to make sure that we have the fairest and most equitable distribution of some of the wealth that this nation is enjoying to those who have gone before us and helped to build this nation.

The older Australians bonus of $500 is payable to every person over pension age who is eligible for the utilities allowance or the seniors concession allowance on budget night this week. For DVA pensioners this also includes age, invalidity or partner service pensioners over pension age, and Commonwealth seniors health card holders and gold card holders over pension age. These are one-off payments but they are non-taxable and they are not classed as income. Those are important things, because some of the feedback I have had from people is that they have appreciated rises in pensions before but particularly those in Housing Trust properties have noted that some of that—in fact, a substantial amount—gets taken away by the Housing Trust. So those people are not as well off as we would have intended by giving them a rise in their pensions. By taking this approach of a bonus—as we look at things like the utilities allowance—we have ensured that it does not come into the equation when things like house trust rents are calculated. So the people who are receiving this bonus are actually getting the opportunity to use the entire bonus for the purposes that they want to in their own households. Whether that is to pay off bills, to assist with things around the home or to do other things, the entire amount is available to them.

In the electorate of Wakefield, there are some 15,000 aged pensioners in receipt of the utilities allowance who will receive this $500, and there are nearly 1,200 seniors in receipt of the senior concession allowance who will receive it as well. So well over 16,000 seniors in Wakefield will receive this $500, which is one way that this government, through its responsible economic management, can share the wealth that this country is currently generating.

The other people whom I interact with on a regular basis are in groups such as the Elizabeth Special School—the parents there who care for children with special needs—and the Northern Carers Network, including Maria Ross, who runs that organisation. They are people who care for the elderly and those with disabilities or chronic illnesses. They invest a huge amount in some of the most frail and needy in our community, and we cannot begin to thank them enough for that. The carer bonuses, which have been paid now for the fourth year in a row, are just a small way in which the government recognises the invaluable work that these people do.

As in previous years, this year the government will provide a lump sum payment to eligible carers who were in receipt of the carer payment or the carer service pension and/or the carer allowance and those in receipt of the wife pension or the DVA partner service pension who also receive carer allowance on budget night this year. In Wakefield’s case, nearly 4,400 people are in receipt of carers allowance. They will receive that $600 bonus. Over 1,000 people who are in receipt of the carer payment will also receive it. So nearly 5,500 people who are carers—who are giving of their time, energy and compassion to care for those around them—are recognised in a small but significant way through this measure, which I welcome.

I also welcome the opposition’s support for these measures. It is encouraging to see that they also see the benefit of it, but I am somewhat bemused by their comments about the measures that we have taken to support veterans. As someone who served for over 22 years in the armed forces I am very aware of the needs of veterans. Certainly one of the large issues that have been brought to my attention time and again by the TPI organisation is the matter of the indexation of the income or compensation aspects. This government has chosen to increase the special rate by $50 a fortnight and the intermediate rate by $25 a fortnight, with effect from July this year.

I note that the opposition has welcomed that, but, at the same time, they criticise it and say how good their plan is. But I notice that their plan, announced by Mr Rudd, looks at commencing indexation, which would build over a four-year period to a sum of $30 per fortnight. The previous speaker was saying just before that,  under their plans veterans would be better off by some $1,700. Under our plan, because the $50 comes into effect from July this year and is not incrementally built over four years, TPI pensioners will be better off by over $5,000. When you compare those two schemes, it is fairly clear that we have taken a step that optimises the benefit to these veterans who have served our country, with immediate effect from July this year. I certainly welcome that move. I also welcome the moves in terms of funeral benefits, although personally I am disappointed they were not greater, and I welcome the fact that war widows now have a longer period in which to register their claims for the new pension once their husband or wife dies from a war-related cause.

The important thing that has come out of this is that this government is able to provide these support measures to people who have gone before us in our community because its good economic management has led to more revenue. Why is there more revenue? It is because there are more people in work, because business has been encouraged and because there has been investment in this country. We have seen revenue go up, which has given the government more options to provide for carers, for our seniors, for education, for the environment, for infrastructure and for defence. Because of good economic management, we are able to do the important things that a government should do.

I am glad to see that the opposition have supported these measures. I am disappointed, however, that over the last 10 years they have not supported the measures that have led to this economic outcome. When we came to office in 1996, there was $96 billion of debt, resulting in $8½ billion of interest having to be paid every year. There were deficits year after year, which meant there was no capacity to provide this sort of support to a range of people with a range of needs in our community. So, whilst I am glad they support these measures, I am disappointed they have not supported the economic measures over the years that have led to us having the economic capacity to share the wealth of this nation not only across portfolio areas but, importantly, with our seniors, our carers and our veterans, to whom we owe an enormous debt of gratitude.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to welcome the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 and to make some brief points today, particularly relating to the veterans and ex-services community. I will focus on two or three points and I will pick up on a couple of points that my friend the member for Wakefield made on the way through—they were not bad points, but I want to further clarify our position with respect to indexation.

I will start off with the compensation payments under schedule 5 for certain World War II internments. Under this schedule, the bill will make one-off payments of $25,000 to former Australian prisoners of war in Europe or to their surviving widows as at 1 January 2007. Labor welcomes this ex gratia payment. This is a long overdue initiative that addresses an injustice that left these prisoners out of two previous ex gratia payments.

In 2001 the Howard government made a payment of $25,000 to former Australian prisoners of war in Japan. At this stage there was much criticism that they had left out the POWs of Europe and Korea. The government ignored the criticism at this time. In 2004, after the Clarke review, they finally made a payment to former Australian prisoners of war in Korea. Again they were criticised for leaving out Australian prisoners of war in Europe. Finally, six years and two elections after the original announcement, these former prisoners or their surviving widows are getting what is duly owed to them.

Until now, the government argued that the conditions experienced by the POWs in Europe did not warrant this payment. However, one thing should be made very clear, and that is that prisoners of war interned in Europe did suffer, and they suffered considerably. Returned POWs reported a lack of appropriate medical care and facilities; an inadequate diet; inappropriate washing facilities; sleeping quarters infested with lice and vermin; confinement in small spaces without toilet facilities, food and water whilst being transported; physical abuse from their captors; forced marches; slave labour; being shot or abused when caught trying to escape; and being shackled. In addition, POWs were subjected to the extreme cold of European winters while lacking rations. The Ex-Prisoners of War Association of Australia has argued that breaches of the Geneva convention varied between regions, while other breaches relating to security, rations, medical matters, transport and shackling were more systematic and clearly the policy of the German high command. Labor congratulates the government on finally correcting this injustice and fully supports this worthwhile initiative. I would like to particularly congratulate the minister because I know that he has been interested in this issue since he became the minister. I give him credit for being able to steer this action through at this budget.

I will talk briefly about some other matters. Under schedule 6 there are amendments to increase funeral benefits. The bill will increase the maximum funeral benefit for eligible veterans under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 from $1,000 to $2,000. Again, Labor congratulates the government on this initiative. There has been a longstanding concern within the veterans community about the low level of this benefit in comparison to the benefit allowed under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This goes some way to addressing this discrepancy and is a positive step in the right direction. It certainly is an issue that is raised with me regularly within the veterans community as something that they see as being quite inequitable. I know that many in the veterans community will not feel this has gone far enough. I understand their position on that. It is something that we will look at, but at this stage I congratulate the government on taking action with this initiative.

The next item I would like to discuss is the amendments under schedule 7 to increase the rates of certain pensions. Under this schedule the bill will increase the veterans disability pension for special rate and intermediate rate recipients by $50 and $25 respectively per fortnight from 3 July 2007. This measure will benefit around 29,600 veterans who receive either the special rate or the intermediate rate of disability pension because their injuries or diseases, related to war or defence service on behalf of Australia, limit their earning capacity. This was a matter which the member for Wakefield spoke about earlier. He sought to contrast his understanding of our position on this issue with the government’s and to focus on certain aspects of that. I will go to that matter briefly. I make it very clear at this stage that we completely support the payments that are being made through this process.

I want to make my argument on this issue clear: there has been a significant erosion as a result of incomplete indexation for those veterans under the special rate disability pension, the intermediate rate pension and the extremely disabled adjustment pension over the last 11 years. It dates back to when the government itself created a situation where we had male total average weekly earnings or CPI, whichever is the greater, for the age pension and a number of other pensions but it left these pensions on CPI increases. There is an argument for it. It is an argument which was not accepted by the veterans community, and it is an argument which has been debated with a good deal of heat, passion and anger within the veterans community over the last decade. It was reconsidered as part of the Clarke review, and the government made some changes with respect to splitting the payment in two. But I think it is fair to say that, although that addressed part of the issue, it actually created a good deal more concern and in fact incensed elements of the veterans community on the basis that it was not seen to be fair, reasonable or just in the circumstances.

What we have seen under that erosion over the last 10-plus years now is—depending on whom you talk to—an impact of somewhere between $70 and $92-plus a fortnight for someone on the special rate disability pension. So it is significant; there is absolutely no doubt about that. Over that period, we have seen no catch-up payment, none at all, to address the issue of that erosion. There was one catch-up payment—if you could call it that—one adjustment. That related to the implementation of the GST. Essentially, as many lower income earners were receiving some additional compensation to make up for the costs of the GST, there was a small increase. But, in the context of the erosion of the value, this is the first time. We are talking 12 budgets to actually see some action. To put that into perspective, $50 in one hit sounds great—it sounds fantastic; it sounds significant—but it is just over $4, $4.17 or thereabouts, per budget if you add it up over time. When you put it in that perspective, it is significant but there is still a long way to go.

The position that I have taken on this issue, and it was announced recently, related to indexation, which we sought to put forward as policy—in fact, the member for Wakefield mentioned it—because that has been the principal demand from right across the ex-service organisations and the veterans community. Indexation is required to ensure that there is certainty, dignity and justice in the payments that they receive and to halt the erosion.

On from that, there has been the issue of that erosion and the impact of dealing with that erosion—the question of a catch-up payment. The position that I have put with respect to that issue is very clearly this: Labor stood ready to accept and to support any payment that the government came forward with which actually dealt with the issue of that catch-up, because we knew and we believe that, as that erosion occurred under this government, this government has the responsibility to deal with it and to bring forward a measure to compensate those who have missed out as a result of that erosion.

The member for Wakefield made a point about the value of our proposal—probably best estimated over a period of four years from introduction—being something like $1,700 net and $30 per fortnight at the end of that four-year period and that that is therefore significantly less than what the government proposes with $50 a fortnight now, which will add up to something like five grand. The point is this: that is something that the government needed to do because of its neglect over the last decade. Labor support that payment going forward. Ours is additional to that and ours remains additional to that, so let us be in no doubt about the circumstances here. The government has done what the government had to do, because the government had let the whole system go to seed. We have said that we will endorse that payment and will then further increase it by introducing indexation. It has taken 12 budgets for a catch-up payment. When will the next one be—in another 12 budgets? How much greater will the difference be over that period of time?

The fact of the matter is that these people need certainty, they deserve certainty, and we will give them certainty after the next election by ensuring that there is no further erosion. We will restore indexation so it is there for all these people who have been affected. That is the important thing about our policy and it is the difference between us and the government on this issue. We fully support this as part recompense for what went wrong, but we want to try to set up a system into the future that means we will not be coming back here in five, 10 or 12 years time once again saying, ‘Here’s a payment to make up for what you’ve lost over the last decade.’ I think that is a very important point.

I have to say, though, that that is not the way the minister saw it. When the details of our announcement came out, Minister Billson was quoted in the Herald Sun in an article by Neil Wilson entitled ‘Labor’s plan wins veterans’. The article reads in part:

But Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Billson slammed the measure as a “cobbled together media stunt”.

Mr Billson said it would take until 2012 for disabled veterans to achieve any real benefit.

He then went on to say:

They say this is about equity but it is illogical. It is inconsistent and unprincipled in ignoring 100,000 other people on lesser degrees of disability pension ...

I will just pick up on a couple of points. In terms of it being a ‘cobbled together media stunt’, we can always debate the issue of when these things are announced. Let me make it very clear that I, and Labor, have been working on this policy for quite some time. I have been talking about this issue in speeches at veterans congresses all over this country for more than 12 months. I have been saying that this is an issue that is under serious consideration. Senior people within ex-service organisations in this country can confirm that. They know because I and others have been talking to them.

I am joined today by the member for Cowan. I know he has an in-depth understanding of this issue and his knowledge has been of great assistance to me in trying to come to grips with what is in many ways a very complex issue. This is not something that has just occurred overnight. A lot of work has gone into it, and therefore I do not think it can be considered to be a ‘cobbled together media stunt’. The minister also said that it would take until 2012 for disabled veterans to achieve any real benefit. Again, that is just not true. Under our proposal, the first indexation point after our first budget will be September 2008. The difference between MTAWE and CPI will be paid at that time.

The point in relation to the $30 is that that is what we estimate the likely cap to be over the four-year period of the forward estimates, but people will be getting money as they become entitled to it, under the CPI versus MTAWE adjustment, every six months. So, in fact, the minister is wrong.

On the issue of equity, the minister is saying it is illogical and inconsistent. He mentioned the issue of the 100,000 other people on lesser degrees of disability pension. What he is talking about is people on varying rates of disability as a result of general rate disability pensions. Again, this is a complex area and I will not take the time of the House to go through it in detail. But I will say a couple of things. Firstly, in respect of general rate disability pension I do not wish to denigrate in any way the disabilities that many people have, but the key issue normally in the consideration between general rate disability pension and special rates and intermediate rates is the recipient’s capacity to work. Secondly, the minister’s own press release with respect to the catch-up payment is interesting. I will go to what he said to justify why special rate and intermediate rate pensioners got this catch-up payment but nobody else did. He said:

The special rate takes into account incapacity from war or defence caused disabilities that alone are so great that a veteran cannot undertake any employment totalling more than eight hours per week. The intermediate rate takes into account incapacity from war or defence caused disabilities that alone are so great that a veteran cannot undertake any employment other than on a part-time or intermittent basis.

That is exactly the case. The point is that, in the paper, the minister accuses Labor of being illogical and inconsistent with respect to this particular difference, yet he himself has used this definition as a basis for citing why certain groups have got this payment and certain groups have not. I think the minister was right in the budget press release, but I think he was wrong in the newspaper article. In those circumstances, he ought to have another hard look at his position on this issue. This is an issue of real and ongoing concern within the veteran community and it is not going to go away. The reason it is not going to go away is that, once again, whether it be July 2007, July 2008, July 2009 or July 2010, the fact is that the erosion will continue. Six months after the $50 is paid the erosion will continue—and it will keep going. People will be left to come back, cap in hand, just before the election after next, to seek some recompense, some catch up, in a situation which is not fair, not justified, not dignified and not something that these people deserve to be put through.

I want to pick up on another couple of issues under the bill. Under schedule 8 there are amendments relating to the backdating of war widow and widower payments. Under this schedule the bill will allow war widows who claim a war widows pension following the death of their spouse an additional three months to claim a backdated pension. From 1 July 2007, war widows who claim the pension within six months of their spouse’s death will have their pension backdated to the time of death. Labor supports this measure. This is a worthwhile reform that has been requested and pushed hard by organisations such as Legacy and the War Widows Guild. This reform owes a lot to their hard work. I congratulate them and I also congratulate the government on taking this action.

The sacrifice by our nation’s war widows cannot be underestimated. They have had to suffer the consequences of our nation’s wars much more acutely than the rest of the population and they deserve everything they can get. The only thing that concerns me about this reform is the number of widows who, prior to this reform, would have been financially disadvantaged by not submitting their application within three months. The estimated cost of this measure suggests that there are a high number of widows who could be classified within this category. But this is a worthwhile and positive reform and it has the full support of Labor.

Under schedules 1 and 2 of the bill, which provide for one-off payments to older Australians, each person who qualified for utilities allowance or seniors concession allowance on budget night will receive a one-off, non-taxable bonus payment of $500. In effect, this will provide $500 before the end of the financial year to all age pensioners and self-funded retirees earning less than $50,000 for singles or $80,000 for couples combined. This measure is expected to affect approximately 286,000 veterans and war widows. Our nation owes a lot to our veterans and war widows and Labor fully supports this payment being made. To be eligible for this payment a veteran or war widow will need to have been of age pension age or service pension age on budget night and be in receipt of an income support payment that qualifies them for utilities allowance or hold a Commonwealth seniors health card or Department of Veterans’ Affairs gold card which qualifies them for seniors concession allowance. Labor fully supports this measure. It is hoped that this payment will help ease the burden that cost of living increases are having on our veterans and war widows.

Under schedules 3 and 4 of the bill, which provide for one-off payments to carers, a payment of $1,000 will be made to carers who receive carer payment. Recipients of carer allowance will receive a payment of $600 for each eligible care receiver. In addition to the $600 carer allowance bonus, recipients of carer allowance who also receive wife pension or the Department of Veteran’s Affairs partner service pension will receive a payment of $1,000. The last three budgets have provided similar one-off lump-sum bonuses to eligible carers.

The health of many veterans is often maintained, to a substantial degree, by their partners in their role as carers. There are 2.5 million carers in Australia who look after family members or friends who have a disability, a mental illness, a chronic condition or are frail aged.

Carers make a great contribution to our society and to the economy more broadly by caring for their loved ones, who may otherwise be taken out of the community. It is estimated that carers save the Australian economy approximately $20 billion annually. They do this by providing unpaid work. Carers clearly contribute a great deal to the wellbeing of our veterans and to those in the broader community who may require assistance in their daily lives. For these carers this measure will be very welcome and it is fully supported by federal Labor. However, I should add that, over the last couple of years, the system for payment of this allowance has not always run perfectly. I urge the departments involved to ensure that all carers who are eligible to receive this payment receive it on time. Our carers should not have to go chasing the government for this payment.

By and large, Labor supports this legislation, and I wish it a speedy passage to the other place.

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

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 and to add my comments to those of the shadow minister, the member for Bruce, and the shadow parliamentary secretary, the member for Cowan. Before I commence specific comments on this bill, I would like to say that the way veterans are treated by their country is a measure of the quality of a nation. Those men and women who served Australia in the forces deserve our highest praise and they deserve their sacrifices to be recognised and applauded by all of us. It upsets and disturbs me when I hear of veterans who are suffering difficulties in accessing the pensions and the support services which they are due. Every single one of us has a duty to ensure that the systems which administer the pensions and benefits which veterans receive are efficient in delivering those services. Sadly, this is not always the case.

While I congratulate the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs on the increase in pensions contained in this bill, I would have dearly liked to have seen the government do much more for veterans. Every Anzac Day and Remembrance Day we bow our heads to pray and say, ‘Lest we forget.’ As we honour those who served, we should never forget the obligation we have to all of our returned service men and women to ensure that the programs in place for them and their families are well funded and efficiently delivered.

As I said earlier, a country can be judged by the way it treats its veterans. While successive Australian governments have recognised the obligation of all of us to veterans through the payment of pensions and benefits, I am concerned that we have allowed the situation to drift and that now our veterans are under immense financial pressure. In my electorate there are a number of very active RSL clubs, which I have the privilege of visiting on a regular basis. Most of these clubs have members who are TPIs and disabled veterans on pensions. I often hear dreadful accounts of the experiences of these veterans in making ends meet with the current levels of income that their pensions provide. Therefore, I support the measures in this bill which provide additional income.

However, more is needed. That is why the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, the member for Bruce, have announced a major policy change to provide tangible improvements to the lives of our disabled veterans which would be in addition to the measures contained in this bill. Labor would increase benefits for our nation’s most severely disabled war veterans by restoring the value of the special rate disability pension, TPI and TTI, intermediate rate and the extreme disablement adjustment pensions by indexing all of these pensions to movements in male total average weekly earnings or the consumer price index, whichever is the greater. This policy change will affect more than 43,000 war veterans with disabilities and is budgeted to cost $61 million. In the first four years after implementation of this change, the recipients of these pensions will be $1,700 better off, with their pensions building to $30 a fortnight more than they would otherwise have been, not including the changes that are announced in this bill. So they would be far better off even than that.

Labor’s proposal concerns the most severely disabled of our war veterans. They include those who fought and served in conflicts including World War II, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, the Gulf War, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. We are already seeing veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan needing assistance. Already eight soldiers who served in Afghanistan and two from Iraq would be eligible under Labor’s proposal for these enhanced arrangements and, therefore, higher pensions.

We have heard from many individuals and representatives of the veteran community about the importance of this issue. In 1997, when the Howard government indexed a range of other pensions, they left out the above general rate disability pensions. Since that time there has been an erosion of the value of these pensions compared to other pensions. For example, in 1997 the special rate disability pension represented 46.3 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. On the most recent figures available, it now represents only 42.9 per cent. If the Howard government had not squibbed the issue in 1997, these pensions would now be between $70 and $90 a fortnight higher. The Howard government provided only partial male total average weekly earnings indexation in 2004 after sustained protests from the veteran community. We should never be in a position where our veterans have to scream out in order to be treated fairly. In a decent and fair society with a reasonably good government, it should automatically happen that these people get looked after. In fact, what was done in 2004 was merely a bandaid solution that failed to fully address the problem.

I welcome the government’s budget announcement that it will increase the veterans special rate disability pensions by $25 and $50 respectively. But this is window dressing at best. It further demonstrates the government’s reluctance to fully acknowledge the sacrifices of our veterans who have been incapacitated as a result of their service to our country. These men and women did not ever fail us, but the government repays them by sticking a new bandaid over the old one, hoping the old one will go away. Without the indexation Labor has proposed, we will be revisiting this issue time and time again as veterans entitlements fail to keep up with the growth of other pensions. There has been no other issue that has been the subject of greater, sustained and more passionate concern in the veterans community over the last 10 years than this one.

This is not just a concern that affects people in Western Australia—this issue affects people right across Australia. In fact, I was just talking with the prior member for Braddon, Sid Sidebottom, before I came down here. A very high number of these people live in the area that he previously represented, and he is very passionate about the fact that this issue needs to be dealt with and commends Labor on its initiative of trying to index pensions into the future.

Our disabled veterans have paid a very high price for their service to our country. Whilst the measures announced in this bill help restore some balance, they can only be effective if they include the measures recommended by this side of the House. This is about fixing an injustice. Labor has listened to our nation’s veterans, and it is time the coalition did the same. I commend the bill to the House but, again, I urge the government to implement Labor’s initiative for proper indexation of these pensions and to give these people the respect and income they deserve in the future.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start my contribution to this debate on the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 by endorsing the comments of the previous speaker. In doing so, I recognise the fine contribution of all our veterans. I acknowledge the fact that this government has not treated them fairly and that the change that is in this legislation we are debating tonight is just a very small measure, a very small step towards what should be done for Australian veterans.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the shadow minister and the proposal that he has put forward. I would like to state my full support for the policy and program that he has announced. It is only through full indexation that we will truly be looking after our disabled veterans—people who have been prepared to put their lives on the line for our country. But tonight I would like to direct my contributions to other areas of the debate, as the area of veterans has been so ably covered by the three previous speakers.

Firstly, I would like to say that the changes have my 100 per cent support. My only comment is: this is too little too late. And there are so many people out there who are hurting that the government should be condemned for allowing a situation to develop where we have a large number of people in our community who are going without on a daily basis, whilst they cynically come in, in the shadow of an election, and throw out one-off payments.

I do not want my words to speak for the hurt that is being felt in the community; rather, I thought I would allow the words of my constituents to say what has been happening to them and just how hard they are finding it. The letter that I am going to start with will demonstrate to the parliament very graphically just how important this $500 will be to one pensioner in the electorate of Shortland. This constituent is a lady for whom I have written some letters in relation to the increased costs in the PBS, and she talks about new increases and cutbacks. I will come in on her letter at the point where she says:

... it is a sad, sick & sorry joke that we only receive $500 per fortnight—which covers [prescriptions] & yesterday I had to pay $26.40 for my fortnightly necessities—so little food till next pension day.

‘... so little food till next pension day’.

I had a fire in my flat (stove & range hood are to be replaced, thank the Lord), and this added to my stress—I am having counselling for shock, trauma, emotional exhaustion & “shot to smithereens nerves” ...

That is just a disgrace. She has been rejected by charities and she has been begging for money, just to pay for the necessities of daily life. No matter what she does, nothing seems to help. She says:

It is quite disgusting & deplorable that the Government have taken away our rights & not [given] us more money to meet our increasing costs as our pensions shrink—no integrity, diplomacy or dignity left & these ever increasing insults are totally unacceptable, “beyond the pale”, NOT Australian and leave everything to be desired.

She goes on a little more in her letter about her problems. She talks about how she has tried to secure food vouchers and how she is trying to manage to get her stove and other whitegoods fixed, and asks me to give her a contribution. And, of course, I will help her out. But I think it is very sad that, in our society, we have a situation where people are suffering in that way. She is just someone’s mum, an ordinary pensioner, who is doing it hard. And I know that she will really welcome the $500 that she will be eligible for. But it should never have gone on that long. She should never have been in a situation where she was forced—forced—to write a begging letter like that to a member of parliament.

I have recently surveyed my electorate. What came out very clearly in those surveys was the battle that pensioners are having on a day-to-day basis to survive. The three most important issues relate to increased petrol prices—and the impact that has on their ability to survive—health and dental costs. In this particular survey my constituent said, ‘Pensions do not cover increases of daily living.’ The next one refers to the price of petrol and how the price of everything in life is increasing. I have another one in which they refer to the impact that petrol prices have had on their ability to pay for things. This demonstrates how much this $500 bonus is needed. I would now like to quote a pensioner in my electorate: ‘I only go to doctors when it is absolutely urgent because I can’t find the $52 I need to pay the doctor.’ Another one wrote, ‘High price of fruit and vegetables—inflation rate is a joke.’ Another constituent wrote: ‘With two living on a pension’—and I think this is a very important comment—‘it only takes one illness on top of a chronic illness to wreck the budget.’ And from another constituent:

The pension will only stretch so far then savings and superannuation have to be used—once they have run out—who knows?

I will not read the next one because it is quite critical of the government, and I think I have adequately made my point. I wholeheartedly embrace the fact that money is going to our pensioners. But I do implore the government to be a little kinder, a little more aware that it is not only when an election is called but at all times that pensioners are doing it hard.

I am very pleased to see in this legislation that the government have rectified a problem that arose a few years back when they failed to pay $25,000 to veterans who were prisoners of war in Europe during World War II, yet they paid $25,000 to those veterans who were interred in Japanese prison camps. I think this rectifies a mistake that occurred back then. It caused great division within the veterans community. I support that inclusion in the budget.

One thing I am very upset about is that disability support pensioners have been ignored. To demonstrate the impact this has had, I would like to refer to three people who rang my office today. For the benefit of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, we have had a number of phone calls in our office today from people who are very disturbed about that. One young girl does some volunteer work in my office. She had a brain tumour and had it removed. She is quite disabled. She has a lovely personality and tries very hard. But she was so angry that she is not to be treated in the same way that aged pensioners and retirees are. She feels that her needs are just as great, and she feels that a stigma is attached to the fact that she is not being granted the same one-off payment that other pensioners are. The second person I would like to refer to is a man who rang my office. He was in tears. He cried to my staff member for four or five minutes. My staff member found it very difficult to handle. My constituent’s parting comment was, ‘What’s the point in going on? I may as well top myself.’ I am quite concerned about that person, and I am hopeful that I will be able to get in touch with him later tonight.

The government have ignored a group of people who probably have higher medical needs and higher expenses than ordinary pensioners and have refused to extend the one-off payment to them. I received another phone call in my office from a woman who asked us to send her a membership form to join the Labor Party. She was so upset that the government had decided that they would not extend the one-off payment to people on the disability support pension. Therefore, I have increased the number of branch members by one because of the government’s inaction.

There is no way I will oppose this legislation. It contains too little, it has come too late, particularly in areas relating to veterans. I am pleased about the funeral benefit being increased. It has been an issue that veterans have been most concerned about for a period of time. But I implore the government to adopt the policy as outlined by the shadow minister. It is a good policy and it recognises the needs of veterans. I hope the government finds a place in its heart to look after those people whom it has chosen to ignore in this budget. It should realise that there are many people who need the government’s assistance, not just the ones it hopes to bribe on the eve of an election.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all the members who have participated in the debate on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, but quite frankly some of the comments that have just come from the other side are so disgraceful that they do not actually warrant being thanked. The fact is that not once in 13 years did the Labor Party pay a bonus to any pensioner. There was a good reason for that—because what they did was to actually mortgage the future of those same peoples’ grandchildren and children. They asked them to pay for their wanton expenditure as an incompetent government and did not give them a damn cent. Yet the members of the opposition have the hide to come in here, one after another, and be so pious as to presume that this government somehow has left somebody out. I say to the member opposite: tell this to your constituents about disabilities—that I went to the ministerial council recently with all of the state and territory ministers and I put on the table this offer.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Hall interjecting

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You, Madam, should listen and take this back. What we offered—and what you, Madam, should tell your constituents—to the states was that the federal government, over and above—

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Remarks should be addressed through you not directly to the member.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will address his comments through the chair.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister should refer to a member by their electorate not by any other title.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the honourable member, and I mean this quite sincerely: would you please go back to your disabled constituent—

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is clearly flouting your ruling.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the honourable member who sits opposite that, when negotiating the next five-year agreement with the states and territories about the Commonwealth-state disability agreement, I put it to the state and territory ministers that the Commonwealth would again enter into a five-year agreement with the same funding plus $400 million indexation. Then, to meet the unmet need for supported accommodation and respite care, we asked each state and territory to come back to the Commonwealth with an individual plan to address the needs of people with disabilities. I said, ‘Come back to us with a plan that will deliver places for supported accommodation and respite care and the Commonwealth will consider each of those plans on a dollar-for-dollar basis.’ I put that directly to those ministers. What they did at that meeting was to adjourn the meeting, caucus outside for 10 minutes, come back inside, read a written statement and close the meeting without further comment. It was a reprehensible piece of behaviour by people who are supposed to be representing those people most vulnerable in our community. Every single one of those people was a Labor minister. The offer we put was then put again in writing, asking the state and territory governments to bring a plan forward to the Commonwealth so that we could fund the need for supported accommodation.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Whilst I find what the minister has to say most interesting, I raise the point of relevance in relation to the legislation we are debating today.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister’s contribution is relevant. There is no point of order.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are dealing with the issue of one-off payments to carers who look after people with disabilities. Given the comments of the honourable member opposite, this could not be more pertinent to the issue of helping people with disabilities—who have been totally neglected by state premiers and ministers. I wrote to each of the state ministers. Not one of them has responded. So I wrote again today to the state ministers and said, ‘You have one month to put an offer on the table of how you will meet, as states and territories, the responsibility of providing respite care and supported accommodation for people with disabilities; and the Commonwealth will consider a dollar-for-dollar funding arrangement.’

The Commonwealth will not run away from the needs of people with disabilities. We will not hide behind the fact that the states have failed these people miserably; we will stand up for them. We should be trying to do this in a way which is bipartisan with state and territory governments. Minister Della Bosca wrote to some Liberal senators, and I got the letters. He said, ‘Why doesn’t the Commonwealth enter into a dollar-for-dollar arrangement like we did for young people in nursing homes.’ That is the exact point I made to his disabilities minister. So Minister Della Bosca from New South Wales, your own home state, agrees. All we want is for people to get on and actually do something positive. So can you please take that back? I would be delighted if you would.

The members opposite made a lot of the fact that pensioners do not have enough money. If it had not been for the Commonwealth introducing twice-yearly indexation and linking the aged pension to not only CPI but also wages, because wages have gone up 20 per cent under this government, pensioners today would be $66.20 a fortnight worse off on the single rate. That is how much better they are off per fortnight on the single rate as a result of our decision to formally link it to 25 per cent of MATWE. The Labor Party never did that. We are providing not only those additional income streams every fortnight but also, because the economy has been run in a strong and responsible way and because we want people who are no longer in the workforce to be able to participate in the wealth of this nation, $1,000 for couples and $500 for individuals. Yet those opposite come in here and whinge. It did not happen in 13 years of Labor government. My bet is that, with their irresponsible way of running an economy, it would not happen if they were ever re-elected.

These measures today go to the heart of a compassionate government providing support when you can afford it directly to those who need it the most. For argument’s sake, let us remember the $25,000 one-off compensation payment paid to our civilian and war internees interned by enemy forces in Europe and our veterans who were prisoners of war. This followed on from the heartfelt and warmly appreciated $25,000 paid previously to those who were POWs of the Japanese. You and I both know very well, because I know that both of our electorates have very large veterans communities, that this will be welcomed not only directly by those individuals but also by the wider community. They know the pain that those people went through, and that pain and suffering has been recognised in this very practical way.

The one-off payments, as I have said, are responsible. They are responsible because it is money that the government has not had to borrow. Running a strong economy with two million more Australians in work, and therefore fewer outgoings in the form of welfare payments, and not having to pay $8.5 billion in interest on accumulated debt that the lot opposite ran up when they were in government means that that is money you can return to people who need it. I know that many in my electorate and in the electorates of all honourable members, regardless of which side of the chamber they come from, will greatly appreciate these payments.

This bill also increases, through the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, the maximum amount of funeral benefit payable from $1,000 to $2,000. The doubling of that benefit will be a great comfort to, and the contribution to the funeral will be greatly appreciated by, family members. I applaud the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for the wonderful work that he has done since he has taken over this portfolio in being able to secure, through this budget, an intermediate rate disability payment in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act—an increase of $25 per fortnight—and an increase of $50 per fortnight in the amount of the special rate disability pension. It will extend the maximum period for backdating of war widows or widower pensions from three to six months in certain circumstances, and the backdating rules will ensure that those dependants or veterans who are not automatically eligible for the war widows or widower pension are not financially disadvantaged during such a difficult time.

Carers really are the unsung heroes, and I am sure that is one thing both sides of this chamber will always agree on. Nothing cuts more to the quick, particularly when you sit and talk with older carers, than their fear of what will occur when they themselves are too frail and aged to look after their children. These people have given so much of their lives for the ones they care for—and they are only the older ones. There are also younger carers who have responsibility way beyond their years. We all applaud what they do. This is not, as some members so glibly put, something done in an election year. For the fourth consecutive year we have been in a position to be able to make a $1,000 one-off payment for those receiving, on the 8 May, either a social security carer payment or a veterans carer service pension. Carers receiving the non-means-tested allowance in addition to either wife pension or veterans partner service pension will also get the $1,000 one-off payment. Any carer receiving the carer allowance will be paid a separate $600 one-off payment for all eligible care receivers.

I know from personal experience, from talking to these people, how much they appreciate that and I am just so pleased that the government has been in a position—because we have a strong economy and for the reasons we have outlined of people being back in work and not having to put this money into paying off debt—where those people will benefit. I hope that we are in a position in future years to be able to continue these measures so that the money can make a difference in being able to perhaps buy some little luxury or pay off some debt like the car repair bills that come in for people who do not have the capacity—because the love and compassion they have for those they care for does not give them the time to do so. That is what being in government is really all about. It is about having an economy that allows you to deliver those dividends to everyone and to deliver them in such a way that people’s lives can be improved. It is not just those in the workforce who get the tax cuts and the improvements in wage increases. Everyone in a just society gets to benefit.

Not only do I commend this bill to the House but also I appeal to all those opposite to talk to their state and territory colleagues and to listen to what the federal government has put on the table here—the offer to help people with disabilities in the most substantial way by giving us a plan on how to provide the right sort of supported accommodation and appropriate respite care. The Commonwealth has made a commitment straight to them, looking them in the eye and in writing, that we will consider each of those state plans on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The Commonwealth is very proud of what it has been able to do in this bill, which is a measure of the success of the nation. The provisions are greatly appreciated by those people who may not be able to directly contribute through the tax system any more or through their working lives but who have done so in the past and who have done so to the best of their ability. As a result, today they share in a successful economy, of which we should all be rightly proud. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.