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

The opposition is supporting the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. It does so because it believes that additional benefits to veterans are always an important thing to be looking at, that veterans are people with whom this country has made a contract and that, because of their service and the sacrifice that they make for this nation, they should always be considered a special case, in the sense that they are not welfare recipients but people who receive compensation and other payments because of that contract between a grateful nation and veterans who serve the nation.

The bill, very simply, does three things. Firstly, it extends the automatic grant of certain pensions. In other words, it amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to extend the automatic grant of a pension payable under part II or part IV to the eligible dependant of a veteran or member, where the veteran or member immediately before his or her death was in receipt of an intermediate rate disability pension or temporary special rate disability pension. Secondly it extends the income support supplement to all war widows or war widowers and amends, again, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to extend eligibility for the income support supplement to a person who is a war widow or war widower who is under qualifying age and has no dependent children, is not permanently incapacitated for work and is not the partner of a person receiving an income support pension, which were previously requirements to receive that supplement. Thirdly, there is the extension of disability pension bereavement payments. Schedule 3 makes amendments again to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to extend the 12-week bereavement payment to the estate of a single veteran or members in receipt of a special rate or extreme disability adjustment disability pension who die in indigent circumstances.

You can say that the extension of the automatic qualification for the war widows pension for surviving partners of intermediate rate and T&PI rate disability pensioners is a logical step. Currently, the automatic qualification for the surviving partner only applies to some intermediate rate disability pensions, where the disability involves the loss of one or more limbs. This is probably an old-fashioned way to be looking at things, and this is a good thing to be doing.

However, despite those good things which the government has decided to do and which the opposition is very pleased to support, I think in the light of the budget you can look at the government as perhaps giving with one hand and taking away with another for different sections of the veterans community. Indeed, the word ‘veteran’ did not appear in any of the budget statements. Presumably veterans, who are very largely retired and do not fit the category of ‘working family’, are left out in the cold. In fact, we are seeing much more that, if you are an aspirational family or if you are a retired person, you do not fit the mould of a working family and therefore you are going to be left out in the cold.

If we look at what the budget does for veterans—what it takes away from them—we see that, while there was an entitlement for partners of eligible service pensioners to take a pension at the age of 50 if they were women, that is now going to be pushed up to 58.5 years of age. Think about it. This is not the gradual increment that we saw when we increased eligibility for the age pension for women from 60 to 65, being the same age as for men; this is a sudden, one-off hit. If you are part of a veteran family which has been planning on that entitlement to come into place, you are suddenly going to be penalised—no warning, just sudden implementation. There has been no consideration of and no concern about how these families may have been planning—just simply a savings measure of $35 million.

We have heard a lot in the rhetoric about how this government is focusing on inflation, that this budget is all about delivering on promises, that it is a fiscally responsible budget and that they are really fiscally conservative people. The three core promises made by the current government before the election were that it would come in and it would reduce interest rates, reduce the cost of food and reduce petrol prices. There is nothing in this budget that will do anything to reduce any of those things and therefore it does not deliver at all on core promises.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would draw the member back to the bill before her at this time, which is in respect of veterans.

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

Thank you for your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear them, and I would point out once again that veterans are part of our community. Veterans are affected by the budget strategy. Veterans were affected by the rhetoric that was out in the debate before the election when the government, which was then in opposition, said that it was going to be for veterans and it would always have veterans in mind when it made decisions about the way in which taxpayers’ money was to be spent. I am simply pointing out that this did not happen. The bill before us, in fact, is one that does do three good things—small things; small adjustments, you can say, in the overall scheme of things—but the government has given with one hand and has taken away with the other.

If we go back and look at the background against which this bill has been introduced and the sorts of policies that the Howard government introduced to make veterans recognised in a way in which they had not been before, probably the most significant thing that the Howard government did was, in 1999, to make the gold card available to all Australian veterans over the age of 70 or with qualifying service in World War II. In 2002 this was extended to veterans over 70 with qualifying service from any conflict. In 2001 we extended the orange card, which provides access to subsidised pharmaceuticals, to British, Commonwealth and allied veterans over 70 with qualifying service from World War II.

The most important thing about the gold card is that it gave veterans the equivalent of private health insurance without having to, in fact, pay a premium. Partners of veterans who received the gold card, on the other hand, are not covered unless, when they become widows or widowers, they meet the necessary criterion and can be covered by the gold card. There are many, many carers who take out private health insurance so that they are covered for the sort of medical care that they require and regard as essential. And yet, from this budget’s changing of the criteria for those who must take out private health insurance, it is estimated that something like 800,000 people are likely to leave private health insurance, which means premiums are going to go up, which is going to affect carers of veterans in particular, and there are going to be probably 800,000 people thrust onto the public health system. So, whilst we are pleased that this legislation gives an extension of the automatic grant of pension entitlements, and whilst we are pleased to see that the income support supplement is going to be extended in the way it is paid, and whilst we are very pleased about the bereavement payments being extended, when you look at the impact of other government policy upon our veterans community—and we must look at it as a veterans community—we see that they are in fact being penalised.

A further piece of legislation came into the House today—it was introduced this morning by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—which is going to implement the carers payment. We certainly have agreed to facilitate that bill coming through so it can be paid expeditiously. But, after all the debate we had about the impact and the importance of the carers bonus payment, in this budget there is no provision for it in the forward estimates; it is a one-off grant. We paid it for four years. The government was prepared to scrap it; after pressure from us it was reinstated. But it is a one-off payment, only for this year. Again, when you couple that with the impact of the anticipated rises in private health insurance premiums—and many of them use this bonus payment to contribute to their private health insurance premiums—there is no guarantee for anything past this year.

So, in the overall assessment of the policy being pursued with regard to veterans benefits, we see this piece of legislation, which was introduced prior to the budget coming down, as needing to be viewed in the budget context to see what its real benefit is for the veterans community. I would simply say that, whilst we are supporting the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 without hesitation, the rest of the budget strategy is not one where veterans are being considered at all—and, indeed, it is to their detriment, as we see when we start to read the fine print in the budget. So I simply say that we welcome these initiatives but, in the overall debate, and looking at the way in which veterans are being treated in the overall picture, the government is found wanting.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to support the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008, which will boost the allowances paid to many of our veterans. This government and the Australian community are justly proud of our veterans, our ex-service men and women, and the measures contained in this bill will go some way towards improving the wellbeing of Australia’s veterans and the wider ex-service community.

Unlike the Howard government—which over 11 years made many promises to the ex-servicemen’s community, promises which by and large were received with a great deal of cynicism out there—this government will provide a fresh approach to veterans affairs. The government considers that the provision of robust services and support for the ex-service community is a sincere way to demonstrate our genuine gratitude for and recognition of the bravery and sacrifice that many of Australia’s men and women of the armed services have made on our behalf over many years. They are people who deserve the highest respect and it is only proper that, as a consequence, that be reflected in the way we as a society treat these men and women who have served this community. This is something that should stay very much in the minds of government, particularly when we sit down and make laws affecting the lives of those who have represented this country. It is something that should always stay with us. When we make decisions, and despite all the parameters that are made in respect of decision making, we should at least be conscious of the fact that the decisions we make are being made on behalf of those who have represented this country, in many cases in very adverse circumstances.

This bill contains three measures that were part of Labor’s pre-election commitment: extension of the income support supplement to war widows and widowers who are under the qualifying age and without dependants, extension of the disability pension bereavement payment to single veterans or members who are in receipt of the special rate or extreme disablement adjustment disability pension or who died without sufficient assets to pay for their own funerals, and the automatic grant of war widows or widowers pensions to widows or widowers of veterans or members who were in receipt of the temporary special rate or the intermediate rate disability pension immediately prior to their death.

Before I talk a little more about each of these matters, which are contained in the bill, it is also appropriate to reflect that it is not just ex-military members who will be affected by this legislation. As you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, for some time in my past I represented many of the police officers in this country, and through the Police Federation of Australia efforts were made to ensure that those police officers who have served in overseas areas, particularly in respect of Cyprus and East Timor, are similarly treated, firstly with respect but also in terms of the veterans entitlements provisions. Therefore, those persons who have represented this country as law enforcement officers overseas will also be beneficiaries of the decisions which have been made as a consequence of this piece of legislation. As I say, these people were seconded police officers from various states and territories and indeed from the Commonwealth, the AFP. They will now be covered by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act in respect of these provisions. So it is not just the military but also law enforcement officers who, in exercising their duties under the command and control of their senior officers and representing the interests of Australia overseas, in hostile theatres, will be accorded the appropriate respect by this government and the Australian people.

I have had many discussions in my electorate on these issues, whether it be with the Ingleburn RSL president, Don Keefe, and its secretary, Bernard Connell—both of whom are returned servicemen—or with Max Chin, from the Dredges Cottage, Campbelltown, which does a sensational job in looking after the interests of veterans, or with Ken Foster, from the veterans affairs association. All of these people are very passionate about the issues of their colleagues, the ex-servicemen, whom they continue to represent.

I can appreciate that in some quarters these fellows might actually be seen as whingers. Let me tell you there are no finer advocates of the interests of ex-servicemen. They make sure the entitlements of ex-servicemen are not only recognised but also addressed. I very much respect their forthright attitude, their commitment and, quite frankly, the compassion that they show to their fellow colleagues. Only this week we had the opportunity to witness in the Great Hall a ceremony to commemorate Coral and Balmoral. I think it is fair to say that just about all members of parliament were there. What particularly struck me was that a number of ex-servicemen, obviously very proud of their medals, left that room in tears. It was a time to celebrate and commemorate their activities, but obviously there is continuing pain. It is worth while recognising that. Simply being a returned serviceman and being valued—and rightly so—in our community does not necessarily remove the pain and the anguish that many of these people and their families have carried for a lengthy period. Therefore, I do not see the advocates of our veterans as insatiable whingers. I think they are very much the heroes out there. They are keeping all of us focused on the real issues for ex-servicemen, on how those issues change from time to time and quite frankly on ensuring that the men and women who have served this country in difficult circumstances are treated properly and with the respect that they deserve.

I will now return to the issues of the bill. The first measure will extend income support to war widows and war widowers under the qualifying age without dependants. Under the existing legislation, a person is eligible for income support if they are a war widow or widower and have reached the qualifying age—for men, that is 60 and, for women, that is the age of 58½—or have a dependent child or are permanently incapacitated for work in accordance with the determination under section 45AA of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 or are partnered and the person’s partner is receiving a service pension income support supplement or social security pension. Labor believes that situation is unfair. Labor made a commitment in respect of that in the lead-up to the last election. As a consequence, this bill removes the requirement for war widows and widowers to be over the pension age, to have a dependent child, to be permanently incapacitated or to have a partner in receipt of income support. This measure, I am reliably informed, will extend the eligibility for income support to approximately 1,400 war widows and widowers immediately and will provide additional support to help them meet their costs of living. Payment of an income support supplement on the grounds of permanent incapacity will be retained in order for incapacitated war widows and widowers and wholly dependent partners who are under pension age to continue to access their income support supplement as a tax-free payment.

The Rudd Labor government is committed to providing care and support to ex-service families following the death of veterans. That is why the government will extend the disability pension bereavement payment in respect of a single veteran or a member in receipt of a special rate or extreme disablement adjustment disability pension who dies without sufficient funds to pay for their funeral. Currently, only the widow or widower of a veteran or member on certain rates of the disability pension receives the bereavement payment, which is 12 weeks of the disability pension upon the death of a veteran or member. Whilst this payment is effective and is designed to assist a person in the gradual adjustment of their financial situation and to defray costs at a time of bereavement, it at present only applies to the member—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. Under the relevant standing order that operates in the second chamber, I wonder whether I could ask a question of the member opposite. My question is that—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Werriwa willing to give way?

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

He is required to hear the question first.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he is not. I have to ask first before you put the question. That is the rule.

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

Thank you.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This measure will extend the bereavement payment to the estate of single veterans or to members who are in receipt of the special rate pensions. This will be of some significance, particularly where people die in indigent circumstances—that is, where they do not have sufficient moneys to cover the funeral costs. The assistance to veterans and their widows is being extended to provide sufficient financial assistance to families to properly recognise the death of veterans in that respect. This measure, as I say, is very much directed to families in helping them defray those costs at a particularly emotional time in their lives and also ensuring that a member can be farewelled with decency. This bereavement payment will be made to the estate of the deceased veteran and will be matched by those currently paid to the partners. So it will be at the same rate and, as is provided presently, it will have the tax-free status of the payment of the 12 weeks of disability pension.

Finally, Labor will extend the automatic granting of pensions to include partners of temporary totally incapacitated and intermediate rate pensioners to provide some peace of mind to those veterans and their families. This bill will extend the automatic grant of war widows or widowers pensions to widows and widowers of veterans or to members in receipt of the total special rate or intermediate rate disability pension immediately prior to the death. Currently, if a veteran is in receipt of the totally permanently incapacitated and extreme disablement adjustment pension and dies, the partner will receive an automatic grant of the war widows pension. This clearly forms an anomaly in respect of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, which treats temporary totally incapacitated and intermediate rate pensioners less equitably than other, similar pension recipients. With this bill, the Rudd Labor government will extend the automatic granting of the pension to include partners of temporary totally incapacitated and intermediate rate pensioners, to provide some relief and assurances to those veterans and their families.

Under this government, the veterans community can expect that this plan for action will be delivered. This is the first step in a concentrated effort to address a range of issues around veterans entitlements, services and wellbeing and recognition of our veterans. This government will ensure that veterans do get what they deserve—that is, a fair go. The government believes that the provision of robust service and support for the ex-service community is a sincere way to show our gratitude for and recognition of the bravery and sacrifice of those Australian men and women. As the Prime Minister said on 13 August 2007:

There is perhaps no greater duty that we as a nation and as a parliament have than to honour, remember and express our gratitude to those Australians who have served in the defence of our nation in times of war, because our security and liberty have not come without a price.

The measures in this bill clearly demonstrate that this is a government that is serious about its pre-election commitments to look after those in our defence communities and our veterans communities and their families, and this bill is the first down payment. I commend the bill to the House.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the minor changes the government is making to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. While supporting these changes, I remain disappointed that the government is simultaneously hurting veterans through the deeming arrangements from last March, in a time of global and local stock market financial turmoil. Furthermore, I am outraged at the changes to veterans entitlements from yesterday’s Labor budget. Until I saw yesterday’s Labor budget, I thought all sides of politics were committed to supporting our service men and women and their families—committed to supporting those who have served in difficult, dangerous and demanding circumstances. I now know that this is simply not the case. I now know that the Labor government is happy to sacrifice veterans on the altar of left-wing ideology, as if veterans have not sacrificed enough.

As a fellow veteran, I joined many former uniformed men and women last month as we as a nation acknowledged the contribution of our veterans, with reverence and with deep appreciation, through Anzac Day commemoration services. I applaud those who put together those services that I attended—people like Denis Trott, from the Runaway Bay RSL sub-branch; Father Len, Ann Harrop and Norm Kelly, from Oxenford-Coomera sub-branch; and Ted Hudson and Richard Muller, from the Paradise Point Bowls Club. They not only served this nation in the time of its greatest need; they continue to serve this nation by keeping the flame alive—indeed, lest we forget. These are just some of the people I am thinking about today as I speak on this bill.

The Veterans’ Entitlements Act, which impacts upon so many veterans, currently provides for the automatic grant of pension to an eligible dependant of a veteran or member where the veteran or member was in receipt of an extreme disablement adjustment disability pension, a special rate disability pension, a general rate disability pension or an intermediate rate or temporary special rate disability pension or where the veteran was a former prisoner of war.

Schedule 1 to the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 will extend the automatic grant of pension to the eligible dependant of a veteran or member where the veteran or member was in receipt of an intermediate rate disability pension or temporary special rate disability pension. A pension will also be granted to an eligible dependant automatically where the intermediate rate or temporary special rate pension is granted after the death of a veteran or member but from a date before their death. For the purposes of this amendment bill, an eligible dependant of a veteran or member is a non-illness-separated spouse, a widow or widower or a child or children of a deceased veteran or member. This measure will apply in respect of a veteran or member whose death occurs on or after 1 July 2008.

Schedule 2 to this amendment bill will extend eligibility for the income support supplement to a person who is a war widow or war widower who is under qualifying age and has no dependent child or children, is not permanently incapacitated for work and is not the partner of a person receiving an income support pension. It is understood that this will benefit approximately 1,400 war widows and widowers who are under qualifying age and therefore currently not entitled to income support.

Schedule 3 will extend the 12-week bereavement payment to the estates of single veterans or members in receipt of special rate or extreme disability adjustment disability pensions who die in indigent circumstances. Currently this payment is only provided for partnered disability pension payments. This one-off bereavement payment, equivalent to 12 weeks of the special rate of disability pension, is designed to help families of veterans to meet the costs associated with a funeral.

All of these measures are positive. The Labor Party giveth. Yet, as day follows night and as yesterday’s budget demonstrates, the Labor Party, truly, taketh away. Two changes—insipid, underhanded changes, not read out in the main budget speech but hidden within the pages of the detail; two significant changes—have occurred to veterans entitlements. This high-taxing, high-spending, high-unemployment budget will see the service pension age for partners of veterans increase, as of 1 July, from 50 years to a staggering 58½ years—saving the Rudd government a measly $35.1 million over four years, or less than $10 million a year. This government—on the back of a boom in mining put in place because of the flexible workplace and industrial relations amendments to law under the previous government—is expecting almost $22 billion in surplus next financial year, on top of the $18 billion surplus the previous, successful Howard government left. This government is expecting this year and next to reap $40 billion, and it is looking to save less than $10 million a year by increasing the service pension age from 50 to 58.5 years for partners—$10 million it is saving as a cost, compared to the cost that is borne by the partners of veterans. I suspect that, if this Prime Minister or this Treasurer ever had the courage to put on a uniform themselves, they would appreciate how miserly and indeed how pathetic this adjustment is.

The Labor government does not seem to understand the sacrifice made by the families of veterans. When I spent five months operationally overseas, my wife, 21 years old, was given four-days notice—four days our family was given before I was deployed overseas. And what is the thanks a grateful nation would give to wives such as these? ‘We are going to increase your pension age from 50 to 58½ years.’ While one partner may be serving operationally on a battlefield or in an operational area, the partners of our service men and women are also making significant sacrifices here at home. Veterans families are asked to move regularly and begin all over again, in places they have never even visited before and certainly away from extended family, friends and all support groups. When service men and women are asked to serve overseas, they go willingly, knowing the great dangers and perils they walk into. Yet their partners allow them to serve, for the greater good of our nation. This cannot be forgotten. It cannot be taken for granted. But this change to the service pension age for partners of veterans is an absolute slap in the face and an acknowledgement by the Labor government that it does not understand nor appreciate the sacrifices of the partners of veterans—those left behind, those who keep the campfires burning.

Last week in Darwin I sat down with an army partners group to hear their concerns. Many of these wives had endured up to six months with their husbands overseas in harm’s way, and with themselves left to raise young families, many of them in a cyclone season in the north without their spouses by their sides. This is a sacrifice. And to raise the pension age for partners is not only callous; it is harsh, it is cruel and it is downright unjust.

Veteran couples would have already taken the current pension age of 50 years into account when planning their futures, thinking—but clearly, from this appalling Labor budget, doing so unjustifiably—that no side of politics would dare fiddle with or change their futures because, in the grand scheme of things, where you have a $40 billion surplus over two consecutive years, saving 10 million measly dollars would not be worth the fiddle. There are couples right now in living rooms all over Australia looking to re-evaluate their futures because this Prime Minister and this Treasurer and that frontbench, who have never put on a uniform to serve their country, think that taking away $10 million will somehow be for the greater Australian good. They should be ashamed, as I am ashamed of them.

To add to the uncertain future of veteran couples and families, access to the service pension will cease 12 months after the separation of a veteran from his or her partner, regardless of whether they are still married—again, proof that the Labor government does not understand the contribution of partners of veterans. You waited for your partner to return home. You waited for maybe six months or, in times of previous conflicts, you may have waited for five years. You waited while spouses served in dangerous and hostile parts of the world. And while you waited you were the sole head of the household. In many cases you were unsure if your partner was coming home—the current death toll on modern battlefields demonstrates that this is still the case. I am sure you as a partner hoped and prayed that your partner would return. Every few years you may have been asked to move from one location to another to serve the greater good of the country. In most cases, and I am speaking as a former fellow serving officer, you had little or zero choice as to where you were posted. And you did it all to support your partner and your country. But what you did not count on, what you did not think would happen, was that a government would take little of that into consideration, would increase the service age for pensions and would take pensions away after 12 months in the event of separation.

It is a disgraceful position and an indictment of Labor’s attitude towards those people who have contributed so much. They deserve to be supported—they deserve more support. I challenge this farcical government and its leaders to go up north to the various locations where our bases are, sit down with partners groups, look them in the eye and explain to them why this move was necessary when, over two years, there will be a $40 billion surplus. This attitude is evidence of a government that does not care about its veterans.

Compare that to the Howard government achievements. The coalition government provided funding of $21 million over four years to ensure that veterans with a gold or white repatriation healthcare card can access appropriate health care and support services on discharge, benefiting 3½ thousand veterans and war widows. In 2006 the coalition government provided more than $600 million to ensure veterans with a gold or white card could continue to enjoy access to high-quality health care. In 2006 the coalition government provided cancer related health care to all Australians who took part in the British nuclear testing program. On and on the Howard government’s achievements go. Truly, through these amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act that I rise to support, with one hand the government giveth while with the other hand they taketh away.

It is an attitude that is further evidenced by what the government has done to deeming rates, which affect veterans as well as elderly Australians. I am disappointed that the government in March sought to increase both the lower and the higher deeming rates without any adjustments to the thresholds, as this impacts upon veterans. It is no good providing benefits with one hand and simultaneously taking them away with the other. For the majority in this government, who perhaps do not quite understand deeming, the deeming rules are an essential part of the social security income test. The rules are used to assess income from financial investments for determining the amount of social security and veterans affairs pensions. This is based on the premise that the higher the personal investments of an individual, excluding assets such as a family home, super, annuities et cetera, the higher the assessable income and the lower the pension they receive.

The premise behind deeming is that financial investments held by pension holders are deemed to earn a certain rate of income regardless of the actual amount earned. If pension holders earn income above the deemed rate, the higher amount is not used to assess income. Thus deeming is generally a simple and fair way to assess income, providing an incentive to invest and earn and encouraging people to choose investments based on their merit. To calculate assessable income, deeming rates are applied to the total market value of a pensioner’s—in this case, a veteran’s—investments. The actual returns in capital growth dividends or interest are not used. Deeming thresholds are generally indexed in line with inflation and occur generally in March and September in line with pension indexation increases.

The previous deeming rate was 3½ per cent on the first $39,400 for a single pension recipient and $65,400 for a double. A deeming rate of 5½ per cent then applied to all investments above these amounts, the first $2,000 being exempt. The government has sought to increase these by 0.5 per cent, which in reality is an increase affecting veterans of the lower rate of 12.5 per cent and an increase to the higher rate of eight per cent. What this means for a veteran is as follows. A veteran on a maximum single rate of pension would earn $546.80 a fortnight, excluding a range of allowances. If they own shares worth $100,000, the deemed income amount was $4,712. With the government increase, it is now $5,212, an increase of $500. This means that a pension holder, a veteran, may lose up to $104 of their pension because of an increase to the deeming rate. If the pension holder’s investments are in shares, they may not be providing a dividend stream, and the current share performance has seen values decrease by as much as 25 per cent. Yet the pension holder may receive a drop in their pension if they hold investments in some stocks and related financial products.

Minister Macklin, in her media release of 14 March, stated:

Secure, low-risk bank accounts can currently achieve returns above six per cent.

This morning I looked at the NAB indicator rate as published on their website, and the NAB retirement account is paying six per cent for funds under deposit over $38,400. This is well short of the minister’s statement of achieving returns above six per cent. The changes to the deeming rates by increasing them by 0.5 per cent to four per cent for the lower rate and six per cent will disadvantage veterans. Considering the turbulent world financial markets, the dramatic drop in the local stock market, potentially poor super returns for the next period and continuing global concerns, the deeming rate should not have been increased. The government should have deferred the deeming increase until at least September this year, when more will be known about the global credit squeeze and particularly the state of the US economy.

Increasing the deeming rate in March has simply hit the most vulnerable citizens again—pension holders, including specifically many veterans. Whilst this is in line with the Labor government’s true nature, as shown in their original attempt to scrap carers and veterans allowances and their inability to put these into forward estimates, increasing the deeming rate in March was economically negligent. I call on the government and especially the Peter-principle Treasurer to review this decision in September. Thus, while I support the minor changes that the government are making to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, I am bitterly disappointed in the underhanded way that the government have given to veterans on one hand and then, with impunity and with callousness, have taken away with the other.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, the member for Fadden might have had more credibility in his contribution if he had given a bit of the history, which you more than most would be aware of, of what happened with the former government and their dealings with veterans affairs and how you yourself had to go and defend the indefensible to your caucus and got savaged badly, which resulted in a reappraisal of the submission that your cabinet required you to put before your caucus to do with the Clarke review. Oh, yes, the former minister knows. No-one on either side can take the sanctimonious view in relation to this area. Of course veterans deserve more, and it is a hard battle getting anything out of any expenditure review committee of either political persuasion. Generally, the way we achieve it is over time, in a gradualist approach, and people do the best they can.

Do not come in here and rail against the Labor Party, which has only been in office for a short while. It would be quite easy to rail against the former minister, who did the best she could in the climate she encountered. I know the former Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. These are not portfolios that have the luxury of other portfolios. You have to fight tooth and nail—generally to Treasury boffins. Ministers of either political persuasion deserve support—and there is a lot of bipartisanship. So do not come in here and make out as if one side is more evil than the other.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Banks willing to give way?

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am always prepared to take a question from the member for Mackellar. I know that it is always without notice.

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

Thank you. The question I would like to put to him is this: could the member opposite explain why the government, of which he is a part, is in this bill expending a total over four years of $7.5 million to extend benefits and is taking away benefits to veterans worth $35 million over the same period? Is that just and equitable in his view?

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a former minister you know that savings have to be found within various portfolios in relation to expenditure. As a former minister you know about the dividends that have to be produced in various portfolios—

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

Not with a surplus of $22 billion.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and you know that if you want to put forward new proposals you have to find funding within your own department. It then becomes an issue of priorities. Priorities over time are examined and sometimes they are changed. But I tell you one thing I am confident about: I am confident about this Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Alan Griffin over time will prove to be one of the best ministers this portfolio has seen. He ran your policy towards the end of your government. Your policy was dictated, in effect, by the shadow minister. That is recognised within the veterans community and in relation to his achievements in this bill and in terms of the budget process. I know what happens on the email system and I know what happens in the veterans community in relation to this minister. They like him, they now he goes in to bat for them, he is across the issues, and he visits them. Senior members of the veterans community are very happy with this bloke and they have good reason to be, because they have one of the best in the pack. The former minister should know this: there will be no better defender of veterans in the Labor Party than Alan Griffin, the current Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.

He has a lot of credibility in the community. I have a large veterans community. My electorate was settled after the war, so it has housing commission and war service homes. I have been committed to veterans issues for the 18 years I have been in this parliament. The veterans kit that my office produced—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That means you are a veteran yourself!

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you do not have to be a veteran. This argument that you have to be a veteran to be able to advocate on behalf of veterans is complete garbage.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Banks! Member for Mackellar, do you have a point of order?

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

Yes. I asked a question, which the member opposite elected to take and then did not answer. I asked him did he think saving $35 million to spend $7.5 million was justified. He has not answered the question. Now he is deviating from the substance of the bill. I would ask him to answer my question and then return to the substance of the bill.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I say in relation to all these thing is that they have to be viewed on their merits. It is not just a mathematical argument as to what you are spending and what you are saving. You look at the nature and quality of the benefits that people are receiving, you make an assessment in relation to that, and sometimes you have got to make some decisions. Sometimes you take some short-term pain for long-term gain. Some of the benefits that we are offering now over time will come to be more substantial benefits to the broader veterans community.

I think the only numbers that former Minister Bishop has been worried about are leadership numbers that always evaporated when it came to her. I do not need to be lectured by her about numbers. As for this argument that you necessarily have to have a uniform—you do not. There are good people on both sides of this House that have the interests of veterans at heart, because they have listened to them and they have sat down with them. Anzac Day is a wonderful experience. We are all sympathetic.

The point I make to you is that you can take cheap shots at whatever minister you have of whatever political persuasion, but they have to go into battle in their budget process—and, yes, they do get done over, because sacrifices are made, and there are some decisions that are hard to defend, because that is how they end up at the end of the process. I am sure the former minister did not win her battles. She might have won the battles to create a few medals so she could pin some medals on some veterans, but when it comes to funding it is a harder process. I say to the chamber that the veterans entitlements legislation bill that is before the House today deserves to be supported and that for too long veterans have not been treated with the respect or, indeed, given the financial support they deserve. I do not say that what they have at the moment is sufficient; they are entitled to more. Of course they are entitled to more. Anyone who puts on a uniform in this country deserves to be looked after and so does their family.

The other day I represented the Minister for Defence in welcoming home six members of the forces who were serving in the Sudan and I listened to their stories. Before that I represented the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in farewelling the veterans who were going to Beersheba to serve with the light-horse and I listened to their stories—and, if it were up to me, I would give them everything they asked for. But it is not my decision, nor is it the opposition member’s, nor is it the former minister’s and nor is it the former Minister for Defence Science and Personnel’s. You have to go in there and fight for a pool of money against people who basically do not want to give you money. So that is how in the end we try and come together from the back bench, with our point of view and our experiences, to drag them kicking and screaming.

I want to pay tribute to the current minister, because I know the work that he did as shadow minister and is now doing as minister. Veterans are getting benefits because he is smart, he knows how to argue his case and he does not take no for an answer. He is backed up by a deputy and by Public Service officials who are very hardworking and genuine in their commitment to the veterans community but who themselves are restrained by the policies that past governments have delivered. So you have to look at the work he has done in the short time he has been in the job. He has credibility—and that is not coming from me. Go and ask your veteran organisations. Read the emails you receive from particular veterans who love emails and send them around to the community. Forget the political stuff; you are here running a political case. If you want to run your politics, that is fine. If that is how you think you are going to get your agenda up, you have another thing coming. As someone said, I have been a veteran here for 18 years. Run the merits of the argument; do not play the man.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Before you took the chair, when the Deputy Speaker was in attendance, she did take the trouble to remind me when I was speaking that I should return to the nature of the bill, and I did. This is the second time I ask the member opposite to return to the nature of the bill. I think we all accept there is room for wide-ranging debate, but I really do think he has gone beyond the pale.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to return to the bill, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me tell you, if the member opposite thinks that I am going to remain silent when I cop garbage interjections and interjections that are aimed at demeaning a minister and what this government is trying to do for veterans, she is kidding. I will respond to every single one of your questions and every single one of your interjections.

In relation to the bill before the chamber, what did the previous speaker, after he railed against the Labor Party, say at the end of his speech? Limp-wristed, he supported the bill, because when you come to the merits of it this bill deserves supporting. When you look at the merits of this bill and debate the matter, this is a bill that deserves support. So let us get back to the bill—I am quite happy to.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Member for Banks.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But do not use the bill as an excuse to belt up the Labor Party and then limp-wristedly say, ‘Oh, yeah, and by the way, we support the bill before the House.’ I did not hear one thing in the short time I was in the chamber against the bill itself. The bill was used as an excuse to rail and to make political diatribes. I do not want a lecture from the member opposite about my ability to respond to what I heard in this chamber. That is what got me riled up. Yes, I came here with a prepared speech, which my staff worked on. But what worked me up was the garbage I heard from the previous speaker and I was not going to allow it to go unremarked.

The minister did visit my electorate prior to the election and 80 veterans and people with an interest in veterans affairs came along. They took questions and he spent considerable time with them and the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. The thing I liked about him was that he did not mislead them. Where he would not be able to deliver, he did not mislead them. He basically said, ‘That’s going to be a hard one.’ I think part of the problem at times is that we tend not to give the honest responses to some of the questions that we are asked and people are misled into thinking there is a chance for some of the benefits they are seeking.

I have enormous confidence in the minister. Today we are debating a bill that to some extent came from those community consultations. The issues in this bill were raised in the community consultations. As I said earlier, it is not all that needs to be done; it is just a start. This is the first instalment. Labor has already delivered on its promise that resulted in the amendment of the social security law, the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, to give increased and more timely financial support to older Australians and to people with a disability, to carers and to veterans. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs introduced this legislation on 14 February this year, and eligible pensioners will have been receiving those payments from 20 March. For the first time, veterans and their partners receiving the invalidity service pension, partner service pension or an income support supplement will also receive the allowance. In addition, an increased rate of telephone allowance from $88 a year to $132 a year will be available to around one million veterans. In increasing the annual utilities allowance from $107.20 to $500, to be paid in quarterly payments, to match the utilities bill cycle, Labor is ensuring that people will have funds to assist them in payment of those regular bills. This bill includes several measures that were part of Labor’s 2007 election commitments. Labor have always had a genuine commitment to our veterans and that will continue.

As I said, Labor is fulfilling its election promises and this bill is part of that process. There are three key measures the bill introduces, and these will make life a little easier for some of our veterans and their families. First, the bill will extend the income support supplement to war widows and widowers under qualifying age. In the past, this was available when a veteran reached qualifying age—for men it was 60 years and for women it was 58½—or if they had a dependent child or if they were permanently incapacitated and prevented from working. Under this legislation, the eligibility for the income support supplement will extend to a person who is a war widow or widower, who has not reached qualifying age and who has no dependent children. In effect, the current eligibility criteria will become redundant. The net effect of the measure will directly impact on approximately 1,400 war widows or war widowers. I repeat: 1,400. Second, the bill extends disability pension bereavement payments. Currently a widow or widower on certain disability rates receives a bereavement payment equal to 12 weeks of disability pension on the death of a veteran. The new measure will extend the 12 weeks disability pension bereavement payment to the estate of single veterans or members in receipt of a special rate disability pension or the extreme disablement adjustment disability pension if they have died in reduced circumstances. With the extension of this measure, the veteran’s estate will have time to adjust to his or her changed financial circumstances and to defray any costs associated with the death of a veteran. This payment is in addition to a funeral benefit, which is also payable to indigent veterans or members and is a contribution towards funeral costs.

The third measure contained in the bill extends the automatic grant of war widow or war widower pensions. Under the current act, this was granted under circumstances where the veteran was in receipt of specific pension entitlements. The grant of a war widow or war widower pension will now be extended to include those partners of a veteran or member who immediately before his or her death was in receipt of intermediate late disability or temporary special rate disability pension. These measures will go toward fulfilling our obligation as a government and as a community to our veterans. I know that those opposite acknowledge that these are benefits. That is what is actually before us, and that is what riled me a little bit earlier. I did not appreciate coming in and just hearing a political diatribe. Let us deal with each bill on its merits. If it is beneficial, so be it. If there is detriment then, yes, get up and have a go at the bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, you of all people would know how difficult this area is from when you were in government. It is difficult for whoever is in office, but at the end of the day what I have always been about and what my office has always been about, because of the nature of my community, is to do whatever we can for our veterans community. The veterans kit that we produced has been without peer for the last 15 to 18 years in parliament. Indeed, it was picked up by organisations and used as the model. As I said, I know that there is genuine support on the other side. It seems to me that what whoever is in government should be doing is marshalling those resources in a bipartisan fashion to try to change government policy to the benefit of our veterans. I am not standing up here trying to claim a moral superiority in this regard; I do not. But I know about advocacy and I know how to get results. As I said earlier, history will end up showing this minister to be one of the best veterans’ affairs ministers. He has not taken a backward step in the short time he has been there, nor did he as shadow minister. He has tried to work out every way he can to advance veterans causes in an honest way, in a compassionate way, and he has tried to do it in a bipartisan way. I know that the shadow minister who is his opposite is also genuine in that regard.

As indicated in the Bills Digest for this bill prepared by the library, in the past the automatic granting of the war widows pension was considered appropriate only for what was effectively a significant physical disability. This has tended to exclude those who suffer from psychiatric disability or other types of physical disabilities. The Bills Digest commented that this is an old-fashioned idea. This initiative of the Australian government means that many widows or widowers will not have to apply for the benefit in a protracted manner. In the past, the process has often been contentious and lengthy. This is a very positive move forward in recognising the care and support provided by those who were the partners of veterans with significant disabilities. In my electorate there were 3,236 net beneficiaries of Department of Veterans’ Affairs pensions and treatment cardholders as at 28 September 2007. Sadly, this number dropped over the previous three months to 3,165 total net beneficiaries as at 6 July 2007. This bill is just one in a long line of Labor legislation that will be introducing social security advances in Australia.

It is a benchmark of Labor governments that care and support is provided to those who need it. In 1901 the Constitution gave power to the Commonwealth to legislate for invalid and old age pensioners. A review was conducted during 1905 and 1906 and legislation for both was passed in 1908. Finetuning was then provided by the Fisher Labor government during 1909-10, and this ensured that the old age pension was payable to people who were aged 65 and over or who were aged 60 years and over and were permanently incapacitated for work, and it extended to women over 60 years of age. Subsequent refinements and innovations were provided to age pensions, disability pensions and carers by the Scullin, Curtin, Chifley, Whitlam, Hawke and Keating governments and, in all fairness, I should mention the updates under the Lyons, Menzies, Holt, Gorton, Fraser and Howard governments. So, in the area of veterans entitlements, Labor has a proud record since Federation and that is why I took exception to the attacks on the Labor Party from those opposite. At the end of the day—(Time expired)

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to rise in support of the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. However, I wish to do so against the background of what I believe is a unique, unparalleled and unjustifiable attack on the spouses of veterans which was brought down in last night’s budget. Let me start with this attack in last night’s budget—and there are two measures which, by all accounts and under all circumstances, are utterly unjustifiable. The first point is this: whilst this bill brings forward welcome additional support in line with the sorts of things which we brought in in government of about $20.7 million over four years rising to $7.1 million in the fourth year, all of these benefits are effectively taken away with a $35 million attack on the spouses of veterans, as was introduced in last night’s budget. This is one of those hidden measures with a practical human cost.

Who are the people who suffer that result? As of 1 July 2008, the Rudd government will launch an attack on veterans’ spouses by increasing the pension age eligibility for partners of veterans from 50 to 58½ years. In one stroke of the pen, with virtually no warning, the age of eligibility to receive the appropriate benefits for the wives of our long-serving veterans will increase 8½ years. The impact that will have on families will be real and dramatic and will be seen in the terms of a $35 million slug to veterans’ wives over the next four years. I repeat: for the wives of veterans in Rosebud, Rye, Dromana, Hastings, Kooweerup, Baxter, Cowes and San Remo this real money will come from that which they would otherwise have received. It will have a real and profound impact on their ability to operate and also on their standing and sense of worth. They will feel that they have been gypped by a government that is giving with one hand but taking away a lot more with the other, hurting spouses of veterans who have served their country with honour and dignity and had just the slightest expectation that their families would be cared for in the years to come.

The second of the measures from last night’s budget which undercuts the measures in this bill is that, as of 1 January 2009, access to the service pension will cease 12 months after separation or from the beginning of a new marriage for the former spouse of a veteran. In other words, if the spouse of a veteran is separated from the veteran but they are still married, and they are not certain whether they can reconcile—in any event, there is no recognition of that lifetime service given by a spouse—the spouse will lose that entitlement. This is a cruel measure which, I believe, utterly undervalues the support given to our service men and women by their spouses. They might have been a partner and spouse for 20 years, but if they then separate for 12 months they lose all recognition of the service they have given indirectly by supporting the men and women who are part of our armed forces. This government should be condemned for taking away the security of our veterans’ spouses now and in cases where they may face the real human challenge which is inevitable in relationships. That is what I want to say as to why this bill ultimately fatally undercuts benefits.

We think the measures are good. They recognise the magnificent service of our veterans on the Mornington Peninsula. The measures, which amount to about $20.7 million, do things entirely in line with the path set down under previous veterans’ affairs ministers such as the member for Mackellar and the member for Dunkley. What I do not accept is that these measures are completely undercut by what I think is a quite draconian, dramatic, unfair and ultimately disrespectful movement overnight in the age at which veterans’ spouses can qualify for their pensions and the disregard for a lifetime’s marriage and support of our veterans, which is now about to be made Holy Writ through legislation denying spouses of veterans benefits if they happen to separate for a period of 12 months or more. That I think is unfair, unreasonable, unjustifiable and ultimately disrespectful. So, whilst I support the bill, I utterly condemn these attacks upon veterans’ spouses, which were handed down in the budget last night. It is disrespectful to our veterans, it is disrespectful to the spouses and I believe it undercuts the magnificent work that veterans groups in areas such as the Mornington Peninsula, Westernport and the Bass Coast area give to our people.

Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008, because of course this government, unlike many former governments, is delivering on its commitments. The bill makes three changes to the veterans entitlements legislation and delivers on promises, as I have said, by the Labor government in last year’s election. These have been dealt with by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin, and other honourable members in this House. The first change is the automatic grant of the war widows or widowers pension to the partners of deceased veterans who at that time were in receipt of totally and temporarily incapacitated disability pension. Previously, this pension was generally granted to the widow or widower on application, but this amendment makes it automatic. It removes an element of uncertainty and therefore stress at the time when that person is already facing the stress of losing a loved partner. The second amendment to the veterans entitlements legislation contained in the bill is to extend the income support supplement to all war widows without their having to satisfy a range of additional provisions. This change will benefit 1,400 war widows and widowers. The final change is the extension of the bereavement payment to the estates of single disabled veterans who pass away in poor financial circumstances.

This bill is of particular interest to me as the member for Robertson. I understand that the Central Coast, of which my electorate forms a major part, has one of the highest percentages of veterans in Australia. In Robertson, my office is a regular contact for approximately 20 ex-service organisations, and in fact we print a number of their newsletters. According to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs website, at September 2007 the Gosford local government area had approximately 5,745 DVA pensioners. My electorate office makes regular representations for our veteran community, and I have recently spoken to the Pensioners and Welfare Officers Network about the Rudd Labor government’s new suite of policy initiatives, including veterans entitlements.

A very short time ago, I was very proud to present the new Australian Defence Medal to 18 ex-service personnel at an official function at Gosford RSL club. This was certainly a wonderful occasion. I have to say that on every occasion where I meet with veterans and talk to them, both at my office and at functions outside, the veterans community is extremely happy with the direction of this government and very happy that, in a large number of areas where they had difficulties and where they had been ignored for very many years, this Labor minister has very quickly remedied those problems and has been very responsive to their needs. I feel great pride in being part of a government that acknowledges the contribution of our veteran community and is able to go out on a very personal level and meet with them and respond to their requirements.

I would like to talk a little about the recipients that I presented ADMs to at that function at the Gosford RSL, because I think they are representative of the type of person who receives these medals. It is worth while noting on the public record some of their contributions. I would particularly like to mention Bronwyn Scully, who presently lives at Woy Woy, who joined the Australian Defence Force in the 1970s, when women’s involvement in military life was fairly novel and a pioneering career choice. Brownyn Scully rose to the rank of lance corporal. By sheer chance, she joined the same unit, the Royal Australian Corps of Signals, as her father, Kenrick Scully—a journalist with the old Gosford Star, which is now obsolete but which I can still recall. He wrote a book called Every Man for Himself about the evacuation of New Guinea in the face of the Japanese invasion during World War II. In that book, Kenrick Scully says:

My time in the Corps gave me the work ethic that set me up for the rest of my life.

Bronwyn was very pleased about receiving her medal, and she said:

This medal is a nice way for the nation to say thanks.

I really think that is what is important about not only the presentation of those medals but also the policy of this government overall: our veterans policy is very much guided by the principle that we do acknowledge the contribution of our veterans and we are saying at every stage ‘thank you for that contribution’ and the sacrifices they made.

Another person presented with a medal on that occasion was 80-year-old Edwin ‘Ted’ Meyer, of Point Clare. He was a young articled clerk when he tried to enlist in the final months of World War II. He served three years in the Citizens Military Force during the Korean War, rising to the rank of lance corporal. His father was an interpreter for the French army in World War I, and he never collected his medals, so Tuesday’s ceremony had special meaning for Ted. He was wearing his father’s interpreter corps badge when he received his own medal. He was very thrilled to be there and to be acknowledged in that way. He is actively involved in the association of the 17th Battalion, and Ted values the skills he learned during his military service. He said on receiving his medal that he did not expect the honour, but that the Australian Defence Medal is a record of his service to his country and he very much appreciated it.

I am particularly pleased that the veterans’ entitlement bill proposes a number of significant changes, as I have said. It really does acknowledge the contribution of our veterans. I understand from listening in to some of the earlier contributions, particularly those from the other side, that there seems to be some complaint or a suggestion that somehow this government is not appropriately acknowledging the contribution of our veterans in the way they should be. I completely reject that assertion. I find it quite extraordinary that after 11 years the now opposition—the previous government—can come along and start complaining about what has been done in one budget and claiming that things should be done in that budget that they failed to do for 11 years. It is quite extraordinary, but not uncommon, not only in this particular portfolio but in virtually every portfolio in this government, that the opposition now claims that things they did not do for 11 years we should miraculously do in one budget. Frankly, that smacks of an incredible hypocrisy.

In the 2008-09 budget the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Alan Griffin, provide additional funding for the Australian veterans community to $11.59 billion. That is not something to sneeze at; it is not a small, paltry amount. It is a huge contribution and it acknowledges our veterans’ contributions. I am thrilled to see it and I am certain the veterans in my electorate, and I assume Australia wide, will be very excited about it as well. This includes $6.34 billion for compensation income support pensions and $4.87 billion for health and health services. Also, ex-service organisations will be able to access additional funding, namely $14.9 billion over four years, including in 2007-08, through the Building Excellence in Support and Training—known as BEST—and the Training Information Program. This includes $6.9 million over three years to restore lapsed funding. These funding arrangements introduced by the Rudd Labor government—not any previous coalition government—a total of $11.59 billion, represent record spending in the veterans’ affairs portfolio.

As I said, I am absolutely thrilled to be part of a government that is putting forward those sorts of priorities in terms of our veteran community. This is the strongest possible commitment yet to the veteran community of this nation. The contribution of carers has also been recognised, with bonuses of $600 being paid to anyone in receipt of carer allowance, $1,000 for those who receive carer payment or carer service pension and $1,600 in bonuses to those who receive both carer allowance and partner service pension or carer service pension. In addition, service pensioners and gold card holders who are over veteran pension age on 13 May 2008 will receive a $500 senior Australians bonus in recognition of the costs they face and the contribution they have made to building Australia.

I am proud to be part of this government. I congratulate the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on a great budget and I am thrilled that this is the acknowledgement we are giving our veteran community.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the once chair of the coalition government’s defence and veteran affairs committee, I am always an enthusiastic supporter of any initiative that appropriately rewards the contribution of our returned service men and women. It is important that we do so and to be seen to be doing so, because any intending recruit into our defence forces would be gauging how much their government is prepared to underwrite the risks they will be asked to take. But, before I go any further, I am tempted to make a passing comment on the title of this bill, the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008, and on the part in brackets especially. I mean, is there that much uncertainty over Labor’s defence credentials that a bill needs to have incorporated in it the words ‘2007 Election Commitments’ bill? It either demonstrates smugness or a very prickly sensitivity to past failures. I wonder whether this will be a feature of other government bills incorporated as a standard format for each bill.

That aside, I did want to raise another associated issue, and that is the government’s position on the claims of the Korean veterans who are seeking recognition for those who died on service after the armistice in Korea. I do recall that a deputation of Korean vets called on the then shadow minister last year and certain commitments were made in relation to post-armistice service. As far as I am concerned, that was an election commitment and should have been incorporated in this bill, if it is honestly titled.

On 9 October 2006 in the House, the present Minister for Veterans’ Affairs seconded a motion that called on the government to award medals for Korean post-armistice service. My question is: when will that promise be fulfilled? There is no provision anywhere in this bill, so can it be assumed that the promise made to the Korean vets by the then shadow veterans’ affairs minister was a non-core promise? The minister spoke about proper recognition, which ostensibly suggests that post-armistice service should be viewed as warlike and therefore attracting entitlements under the act. At least that is the impression the veterans gained after their meeting.

The member for Barton, who moved the motion, described the review committee’s recommendation for the awarding of an Australian general service medal and a return from active service badge as very sensible. This seems to imply that a Labor government would grant full entitlement under the act for post-armistice service. That is exactly what the Korean vets are asking for now. The member for Barton said at the time: ‘If the coalition government is serious about taking care of our soldiers, it has to put its money where its mouth is’—a fair statement. Now, will this government do the same? Will you honour the commitment you made to these vets and will you do it now?

In the minister’s second reading speech to this bill, he said in his opening remarks: ‘I am pleased to present legislation that demonstrates this government’s commitment to Australia’s veteran community.’ The Korean vets and I will also be pleased when the minister introduces legislation giving life to his government’s commitment to them. Let me quote what the Labor Party policy says. It says:

Implement Post Armistice Korean Service Review recommendations

The post-armistice Korean service review was established to examine the level of recognition that service in Korea from 1953 to 1956 should be given.

The review made six recommendations, but the Howard Government chose to ignore four of them.

Under a Rudd Labor Government, Defence will implement all of the recommendations of this review. This will fully support the efforts of the Korean War Veterans Recognition Committee to gain the recognition they deserve.

But the few provisions contained in this bill I do support, because it builds on the many initiatives introduced by the previous government—achievements such as increasing the amount of combat ready troops from the 45 per cent we inherited to the 66 per cent we left in November.

We increased funding to veterans from $6.2 billion in 1995-96 to over $11 billion in 2007-08—an increase in real terms of 25 per cent. For the first time ever, we linked service to the war widows pension by legislation to a fixed and measurable benchmark: 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. We restored the pension rights of thousands of war widows that were cancelled by Labor. We recognised the suffering of POWs with the payment of a bounty to each POW. We instigated a review of the act to ensure that needs were being properly addressed by contemporary standards. And we initiated many more reforms to ensure our veteran community were, arguably, the best looked after in the world. I applaud the fact that the government has adopted this philosophy and continued to support our veterans with these measures. I am delighted that the war widows and war widowers have their extended income support supplements, because it will certainly be of some assistance in what is shaping up to be stormy times ahead as far as the global economy is concerned.

One of the things we did for widows and widowers of veterans in 2001 was to establish a program to enable these worthy people to stay in their homes longer by providing home care. The other measures introduced by this bill are also welcomed, but there is still much to do and I welcome the minister’s undertaking to better look after those in the veteran community. The minister can rest assured that we on this side of the House will be making sure that there is no slippage of that undertaking because there is no disagreement on the fact that this country owes its veterans a very large debt that should transcend any political campaign promise. George Washington had the wisdom to recognise that you are judged by your deeds when he wrote:

The willingness of future generations to serve in our military will be directly dependent upon how we have treated those who have served in the past.

It is most laudable for a government to fully support its defence community, some of whom become veterans following war service. We did this through the Clarke review of veterans’ entitlements, and just a few weeks ago another review panel also set up by the Howard government made recommendations for valour awards for some of those who participated in the Battle of Long Tan. I hope this government recognises the wisdom of George Washington’s words and upholds the recommendation to award Major Harry Smith, Lieutenant Kendall and Lieutenant Sabben retrospective awards for gallantry in the field. Every day delayed signifies a grudging reluctance to do the right thing, and I would strongly urge the government to authorise these awards without delay.

As always, there is much to be done. If this government adopts the policies for veterans that we took into the election last year, they will have no argument from either me or the veteran community. But let us just have a quick look at what this Rudd Labor government offered veterans—or should I say did not offer veterans—in the budget that was announced last night. The Rudd government budget has left veterans out in the cold with two very significant changes which were announced. One of them was that the Rudd Labor government from July 2008 will increase the service pension age eligibility for partners to 58.5 years for women, which is up from the previous 50 years. This measure is estimated to save the Rudd government $35.1 million over four years. Veterans are one part of our community who must be exempt from budgetary cuts as we are eternally indebted to them for the sacrifices they have made for our nation. By raising the eligibility age, the Rudd government is condemning our veterans’ families to financial stress and hardship. Veterans and their families who have planned their future budgets based on this entitlement will be worse off under the Rudd government. This measure demonstrates the total disregard the Rudd government has for the contribution that our veterans have made to our country. With a surplus of $21.7 billion there is no need to punish veterans’ families.

In addition to the above measure, the Rudd Labor government has announced that it will no longer provide a service pension for partners who are separated from, but still legally married to, a veteran. And commencing on 1 January 2009, access to the service pension will cease 12 months after separation or from the beginning of a new marriage-like relationship of either the veteran or the partner, whichever comes first. They could still be married at this point in time. It is well known that veterans have problems. We should be assisting reconciliation, not penalising.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to speak in favour of the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008, which delivers on several commitments made by the Rudd government during the 2007 election campaign. This bill addresses a number of longstanding concerns of veterans that the Howard government failed to act upon. Australia’s ex-service community have given their best for our country and obviously they deserve our best in return. I think the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has said it best. As opposition leader in August last year, he said:

There is perhaps no greater duty that we as a nation and as a parliament have than to honour, remember and express our gratitude to those Australians who have served in the defence of our nation in times of war, because our security and liberty have not come without a price.

I think the Prime Minister, with a Vietnam veteran brother, would know as well as any family the impact that serving can have on a family back home in Australia.

The Rudd Labor government promised a fresh approach to veterans’ affairs and committed to work in partnership with the ex-service community on the issues that concerned them. I well remember the current Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister Griffin, coming to Moreton, to a pub in Moorooka, and meeting with the veterans community during the election campaign. The veterans community and the RSL representatives that were there had respect for him, because he told them straight, ‘These are the things that we can have some progress on and these are the things that are much more difficult.’ There was no political speak; it was just plain, hard truth. The best thing about that is that he has since delivered for the community, because this bill obviously delivers on that commitment and those promises and on our commitment to support veterans and their families.

One of the most significant measures contained in this bill is to extend the income support supplement to war widows and widowers under qualifying age without dependants. War widow pension recipients must currently meet a number of conditions before they can receive the additional income support supplement. To qualify they must be of qualifying age—60 or more for males and over 58½ for females—be permanently blind or permanently incapacitated and unable to work, have a dependent child or children and be the partner of a person who is receiving an income support pension from either the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or Centrelink. This bill amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to remove all eligibility criteria for the income support supplement if the person is a war widow or widower.

I understand the war widows pension is currently paid at $582.40 per fortnight. There are currently about 110,000 recipients, of which 83,000 receive the income and asset tested income support supplement. This bill will allow all recipients of the WWP to access the income support supplement as long as their income or assets do not exceed the limits. This will potentially help an additional 1,400 war widows and widowers. By removing the age limits, the income support supplement will now be available to help younger war widows and widowers and wholly dependent partners.

This bill also extends disability pension bereavement payments. A widow or widower of a veteran currently receives a bereavement payment of 12 weeks of disability pension upon the death of the veteran or member. This payment helps to assist the person adjust to his or her financial situation, given that the pension of the deceased person obviously will stop. This payment will be extended to the estate of single veterans or members in receipt of the special rate disability pension or extreme disablement adjustment disability pension who die in indigent circumstances. It is sad to think that we live in a society where that is the case, but obviously there are many people who come back with troubled lives and unfortunately do not necessarily kick on and become successful in business et cetera. So this payment will help cover liabilities, including funeral expenses, so that the nation does its best to honour its service people. This payment is in addition to a funeral benefit, which is also payable to indigent veterans or members and is a contribution towards funeral costs.

Finally, this bill also extends the automatic grant of war widow and war widower pensions. These are currently only granted automatically to some intermediate rate disability pensioners, where the disability involves the loss of one or more limbs. In line with the Rudd government’s election commitment, and in line with the commitments that now Minister Griffin made throughout the election campaign and in his meetings with the veterans community, this bill will ensure the automatic grant of the war widows pension to the surviving partners of certain classes of disability pensioners from 1 July 2008. This includes totally and permanently incapacitated and extreme disablement adjustment pensioners. As well as the war widows pension, surviving partners will receive the income support supplement and the gold card for treatment. This is expected to benefit more than 20 new war widows and widowers each year.

Disability is not always as obvious as an amputated limb. I think we are all aware of the other conditions that can result but that are not as obvious as amputated limbs. Other physical disabilities—for example, a heart condition—as well as psychiatric disabilities connected to war or armed service can be just as debilitating. It was interesting just this week to meet so many of the veterans from the Coral and Balmoral battles in Vietnam and to talk to some of them about how they had adjusted to war. It was a very proud night—40 years too late, in a way—and it was great that they felt that they and their contributions were being recognised. I had the honour of meeting some of those veterans at the reception organised by the Prime Minister and the opposition leader. It was great to hear how many of them had coped and adjusted but also very sad to hear of how some of their comrades and friends from the military had not adjusted and had brought home baggage. Whilst it was a wonderful evening and a great honour for me to meet many of those veterans, it brought home how this legislation will benefit people who are suffering from psychiatric disabilities and the like. This bill introduces a much fairer system. It will also provide some peace of mind to veterans and their families during a vulnerable and difficult time.

In my time as a candidate in the 2004 election and in just being a member of the Moreton community, I have met an incredible number of returned servicemen. In fact, I was fortunate enough to have a returned serviceman on my campaign team. David Forde was fantastic as a campaign person but he also gave me insights into the veteran community. I am going to mention some of the RSLs and veterans communities in my electorate to acknowledge the great work that they do. I especially mention Fred Dempsey from the Salisbury RSL Sub Branch, who runs some of the tightest Anzac Day and Remembrance Day ceremonies I have ever experienced. I do have to occasionally remind him that I am not in the military, but he ignores that and treats everyone like they are in the military and gives them orders accordingly. The Sherwood-Indooroopilly RSL Sub Branch do great work throughout the north-western part of Moreton. The Stephens RSL Sub Branch have made many representations to me, do great work in the northern part of my electorate and run a fantastic Anzac Day ceremony. The Yeronga-Dutton Park RSL Sub Branch also run some great Anzac Day ceremonies. In fact, I was fortunate enough to speak at their most recent one. It was actually in the Prime Minister’s electorate but only across the road from mine, so I felt I was justified in going into that electorate.

I would especially mention the Sunnybank RSL Sub Branch and their president, Robert Lippiatt, who leads a magnificent team that have done many significant projects in the Sunnybank area. They are particularly active in the schools, running great Anzac Day ceremonies and engaging with young people. There were about 2,500 to 3,000 people at the recent Sunnybank Anzac Day ceremony, which was just incredible, with people being bused in from everywhere. They do great work in the schools to educate the young people, but they also reach out to the veterans community. They are setting up a men’s shed. They are really a forward-thinking RSL sub-branch and a great asset to our community. I especially commend Robert Lippiatt and his team. There are also other groups that are not so much bolted to the one area such as the Defence Services Nurses RSL Sub Branch; the Diggers Association; the RSL ex-RAAF—I mention particularly Les Watts, one of my constituents, who chews my ear every single time I see him about the role of the RAF; the War Widows Guild of Australia; and, lastly, Brisbane Legacy, who do an incredible job as well.

I will mention one particular other organisation, because I have a letter in front of me from Laurie Woods, who is part of the 460 Squadron (RAAF) Association, Queensland Branch. He recently took off to Holland to present a painting of the Manna drop that they had commissioned. I will not go into the details of that—it is not appropriate whilst talking to this legislation—but it was certainly an interesting time in Australian military history. On behalf of the Australian 460 Lancaster Squadron, he presented this painting to the Dutch nation. I have seen the painting and it is a fantastic painting. It is about looking after, caring for and honouring the Australian airmen who lost their lives over Europe. Of the 3,486, approximately 2,000 are buried in Holland. So it was certainly a perilous existence and it was great that Laurie Woods was able to go there to present that painting.

This legislation is obviously all about making a much fairer system. Anything we can do that will give peace of mind to veterans and their families during a vulnerable and difficult time is to be commended. Making the grant automatically available should make the difficult time when someone passes away a little more tolerable. The legislation removes the requirements for a surviving partner to make a claim for a war widows pension and then satisfy the various requirements.

I thank Minister Alan Griffin for bringing this important legislation before the House. It continues his history of listening to the veterans community and then delivering on as many of their aspirations, wishes and needs as possible. I am proud to stand up here for the Australian ex-service community and support this bill. Although I am obviously not from the ex-service community, it is an honour to represent them and I look forward to continuing to do so for a long time. Once again, I thank Minister Alan Griffin for bringing in this legislation.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like all legislation relating to veterans and their families, the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 is of particular interest to the electorate of Hughes. Like so many other electorates across the country, I have many constituents who are part of the significant ex-service community.

This bill is about looking after those in the veterans community and their families; hence, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill and overall I do support it. The purpose of the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 is to extend the income support supplement to war widows or widowers who are under the qualifying age. While I do support this bill, I must say that I am confused about some of the measures in last night’s budget because, strangely, the government has actually raised the age of service pension eligibility for veterans service partners from 50 years to 58 years. This is for female partners. This is a confusing initiative, given that the purpose of this particular bill is to actually be of assistance to families of veterans. But I would like to say a little more about that later.

This bill provides measures that remove the requirements for war widows and widowers under the qualifying age to have a dependent child, be permanently incapacitated or be the partner of a person receiving an income support pension, before they can receive the income support supplement. The bill will also extend to certain single disability pension recipients the disability pension bereavement payment. Under this measure, the bereavement payment will be extended to cover single recipients of the special rate and extreme disablement adjustment disability pension who die in impoverished circumstances. This bill will also extend the automatic grant of war widow or war widower or orphaned pensions to the widows, widowers and eligible children of veterans and members who immediately before the death of their veteran relative were in receipt of the temporary special rate or intermediate rate disability pension.

To make this legislation as effective as possible on a national level, I respectfully suggest that the federal government give favourable consideration to the following points. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs issued a media release in recent months describing the veterans’ entitlements legislation amendment bill as a fairer indexation system that would result in a range of additional payments delivering up to $1,045 more per year for Department of Veterans’ Affairs war widows, widowers and disability pensioners. The minister said that these payments and new indexation methods maintain and improve the value of veterans and war widows pensions and protect them from future erosion. Only in the last days had the previous government acted. They failed to recognise the erosion of veterans’ pensions until they were forced to do so. He said that the Rudd government is committed to providing increased and fairer financial support for members of the veteran community and this package delivers a key election promise. However, the general rate disability pensions will for the first time be indexed with reference to both the consumer price index and the male total average weekly earnings, which is fair enough.

Alongside the improved indexation calculations, the base rate of all pensions on the general rate will increase by five per cent. For example, 100 per cent general rate recipients will receive an extra $22 a fortnight, which will be very welcome. Extreme disability adjustment pensioners will receive an extra $15 to their base rate on top of the indexation increase, resulting in an additional $40.20 a fortnight. The war widows pension will increase by $19.70 to $582.40 a fortnight; the single service pension by $9.10 to $546.80 a fortnight; and the married couples rate by $7.70 to $456.80 per person per fortnight. The wholly dependent partners death benefit and special rate disability pension under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 have also increased in line with the latest increases under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The new pension rates come into effect on 20 March and were first payed on 27 March 2008. These increases are in addition to the increased utilities and telephone allowances paid to eligible veterans and war widows.

The coalition during the last federal election committed to increasing the utilities allowance and seniors concessional allowance to $500 for those people receiving the age pension, mature age allowance, partner allowance, widow allowance, service pension, veterans income support supplement, carers payment, disability support pension or DVA invalidity service pension, and for holders of the Commonwealth seniors health card, through the More Support for Pensioners, Self-Funded Retirees and People with Disabilities and their Carers policy. This was announced by the coalition on 23 October 2007.

This announcement was followed by Labor announcing on 1 November 2007 their copycat policy, Making Ends Meet: Federal Labor Plans for Older Australians and People with Disabilities and Carers, which largely mirrored the coalition policy. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do acknowledge that generally speaking there has been bipartisan support for this very venerable and venerated policy area of our government. If the coalition had not announced this policy during the last election campaign, would Australian veterans be worse off? Labor would not have brought this legislation into the parliament. One must say that this is another example of Labor me-tooing coalition policy, as was often done in the last election campaign. However, this is one that I will not, and the veterans certainly would not, complain about.

What the coalition did not do was refuse to give the veterans community certainty by leaving them in limbo regarding the carers bonus. The Rudd Labor government were elected on the basis of protecting working families and Australia’s most vulnerable, yet they appear ambivalent to carers and their families. This bill continues to show ambivalence to veterans by the Labor government, as it appears that, while they have given with one hand, they actually have taken away with the other.

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs used the introduction of this bill to detract from the carers bonus and the deeming issues that were relevant to a large number of veterans. This bill is totally silent on the carers bonus. It fails to reassure the veterans community of the continuation of the bonus, which the coalition implemented.

Deeming is the other issue about which the minister continues to remain silent. The deeming rate increased on 20 March 2008 by 0.5 per cent. While this portfolio has always been marked by bipartisan support on most measures in the past, the Whitlam and the Hawke and Keating governments made insensitive cuts into the Department of Veterans’ Affairs budget. Between the years 1996 and 2007, the coalition government delivered for veterans in many and various meaningful ways. Initiatives included the gold card. The government announced on 27 April 1998 the extension of eligibility for the veterans gold card to all World War II veterans, being those who had run the risk of being exposed to danger from hostile fire and who were then aged 70 or more. The initiative commenced on 1 January 1999, 54 years after the end of World War II. The government estimated that this initiative would provide a gold card to an initial 50,000 veterans at a cost of $508 million over four years.

The veterans home care was another initiative established by the coalition government in 2001 to provide widows and widowers with low-care needs to maintain their homes and to be able to remain in their homes longer. This program provided for services, domestic assistance, personal care, safety related home and garden maintenance and respite care. Services are allocated on a needs basis to holders of the gold and the white cards.

The accreditation of aged care facilities was introduced also by the coalition in support of our veterans who had to use that particular service. The first accreditation had been undertaken and been successful by 1 January 2001. In 2007-08, the coalition government provided funding of $21 million over four years to ensure that veterans with a gold or white repatriation healthcare card could access appropriate healthcare and support services on discharge from hospital, benefiting some 3,500 veterans and war widows a year.

In 2001-02, we reinstated the war widows pension to those widows who lost their pensions prior to 1984 on remarriage. War widows and widowers now have an additional three months to claim their war widows pension after the death of a spouse. In 2007, we provided funding of $57.2 million to make ex gratia payments of $25,000 each to Australians held as prisoners of war in Europe or their surviving spouses. The coalition provided a similar payment in 2001 for those held by the Japanese and in 2003 for those held by North Korean forces.

The coalition government has in the past been and will continue in the future to be committed to putting our veterans and their families and their needs first, and committed to supporting veterans and families who have dedicated their lives to serving our nation and thus ensuring the freedoms that we enjoy today.

Yet on the eve of Anzac Day, just weeks ago, the Rudd government displayed an insensitivity to the needs of Australian diggers and their families. The announcement by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs of negotiations to place care and support needs of younger ex-service men and women with a disability into the Commonwealth state/territory disability agreement was a positive move, but it shows how out of touch and insensitive to the needs of the veteran community the government can be, because Labor do need to explain why they are moving some young veterans with a disability—ex-service men and women—to a state government system where one size fits all. The coalition recognises that individual care plans are needed for any veteran who has a clinical condition. One size does not fit all and veterans need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Our veterans have fought under our national flag and it is the nation’s responsibility to care for them, not the state. The federal Labor government needs to listen and consult widely with the veteran community before making any such decisions so relevant to their personal care. The opposition remains committed to ensuring that veterans’ needs are tailored to veterans and are delivered through the veterans’ affairs program and not delivered as part of a general social security and welfare system by state governments.

This bill, while it is a positive step in the right direction, is overshadowed by last night’s announcement that the Rudd government is increasing the age of service pension eligibility for veteran service partners from 50 to 58.5 years for women. As I have said, it seems to be in total conflict with the objectives of this particular bill in making available greater eligibility for people in that position. By suddenly raising the eligibility age, the government is condemning our veterans families to financial stress and hardship and great uncertainty. The Rudd government is giving to veterans on one hand, through the introduction of this important bill, and taking away with the other by lifting the eligibility age for veteran service partners. As I said, given the objectives of this bill, it is confusing and difficult to understand why such a measure was made and provided for in the current budget.

And when one also looks at the fact that there is a $21.7 billion surplus, one wonders why there is a need to put such an imposition upon veterans families. We can afford to care well for our veterans and we can support their partners and we must be very mindful that the partners of veterans have served and supported our country just like they have supported their veterans. Many of them have raised families while their husbands or partners have been sent overseas, sometimes on short notice, for months on end. Indeed, in previous conflicts many of those service partners were alone for years on end. They have indeed served our country. With a $21.7 billion surplus, it seems mean-spirited to me that we have taken away that kind of support. To raise the age of eligibility for veteran service partners from 50 to 58.5 years for women seems to be mean-spirited in the context of the wealth of this nation. We can do better for veterans and their families and, with these caveats, I do support the bill.

However, before I finish, I would like to acknowledge the veterans across Australia who participated recently in the 40th anniversary of the battle of Fire Support Base Coral and Balmoral, as well as acknowledge all those who took part in that very significant battle in the Vietnam War. I particularly acknowledge 1RAR and 3RAR. The 3rd Royal Australian Regiment are in my electorate, at Holsworthy. They are a known as ‘Old Faithful’, which is a wonderful name they have gained due to their reputation for delivering the impossible. I am very proud to have met many of them at the function that was held by the government in the main hall on Monday evening. I wish to commend and thank them all for the service they have given to their country. Even while we have a very significant and generous budget that provides for veterans and their families, I think the very best that we can do for them is to try to be the very best Australian citizens we can be in their honour and in reflection of their personal sacrifice. I commend this bill to the House.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise in this place today to speak to the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. The bill contains three measures, which were key policy initiatives in the area of veterans’ affairs for the Labor Party at the election late last year. Among other things, the bill will extend the income support supplement to war widows and widowers under the qualifying age without dependants, extend disability pension bereavement payments in respect of single veterans or members in receipt of special rate or extreme disablement adjustment disability pension who die without sufficient assets to pay for a funeral and automatically grant a war widows or widowers pension to widows or widowers of veterans or members in receipt of temporary special rate or intermediate rate disability pension immediately before their death.

Extending the income support supplement to all war widows and widowers will effectively remove the qualifying age for the income support supplement for war widows or widowers without dependants. Currently the qualifying age is 60 years for men and 58.5 for women. This change will result in existing and future war widows and widowers under these qualifying ages becoming eligible for the income support supplement on and from 1 July 2008. I understand this change will assist approximately 1,400 war widows or widowers and wholly dependent partners who are under pension age and not currently entitled to income support. This measure is particularly relevant given that we have brave men and women from Australia’s defence forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and in recent times have sadly seen the loss of life of members of the defence forces. The partners of defence personnel killed in action should not have to wait until pension age to receive this payment, and now I am very proud to say they will not have to wait.

Payment of the income support supplement on the grounds of permanent incapacity will be retained so that incapacitated war widows or widowers and wholly dependent partners who are under the pension age continue to receive their income support supplement as a tax-free payment. The current maximum rate for the income support supplement is $163.20 per fortnight, and I am sure that the extension of this benefit will be welcomed by war widows and widowers and the veterans community as a whole.

The extension of the disability pension bereavement payments to the estates of single veterans who have died in indigent circumstances is a great step forward, providing dignity for deceased veterans. Our veterans have served their country with honour and dignity in life, and this measure will ensure that we treat them accordingly after their passing. This measure will apply to the estate of single recipients of the special rate and extreme disablement adjustment rate of disability pension. A person will be considered to have died in indigent circumstances if the value of the person’s estate is not sufficient to cover all liabilities, including funeral costs. This one-off payment will provide 12 weeks disability pension payment to the estate of the deceased veteran or Defence Force member. This payment is in addition to a funeral benefit, which is also payable to indigent veterans or members and is a contribution towards funeral costs and will be payable in respect of deaths that occur on or after 1 July 2008. As well as assisting the families of veterans, this measure will also take some financial pressure off ex-service organisations and their members, who often put their hands in their pockets to ensure that one of their members has a dignified burial. Currently this payment is only available to the widow or widower of the deceased veteran or defence member.

The extension of the automatic grant of war widow or war widower pension is another initiative that we took to the last election. This measure will automatically grant the war widow or widower pension to the partner of a veteran or member where that veteran or member was in receipt of the intermediate rate or temporary special rate disability pension. This measure will commence on 1 July 2008.

All of these measures were fully funded in last night’s budget. It is another example of the Rudd government delivering on every single one of its election commitments. Unlike those opposite, we do not have ‘non-core promises’ as part of our language—things to be quickly forgotten after the writs have been returned, as has been the case in the past. The veterans affairs budget from the Rudd government provides a record $11.59 billion spend on veterans and their families. This record spend is occurring against a quite rapidly declining population in the veteran community. For veterans and their families, as well as the rest of the Australian community, this budget provides certainty in relation to the range of payments to older veterans and particularly those with caring responsibilities.

These changes are long overdue. Our veterans community deserves the very best service and care government can offer. These fine men and women have served our nation in times of war and in times of peace, putting their bodies and their lives on the line in the name of service to their country. As a Labor member of this place, I am very proud of the policies that we took to the last election, particularly in relation to our veterans. There is no-one more deserving of our support and the support of government generally.

No matter where they have served, in war or in peace, our veterans have made great sacrifices to build and protect the nation that we have today. Veterans’ families have also had to make sacrifices: having a member of their family away for long periods of time, and helping that family member readjust to life after deployment and, often, later to civilian life. The families of our veterans are unsung heroes and they give support and care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is correct for me to reflect on words that the Prime Minister used in the House of Representatives yesterday. He said, ‘Sadly, sometimes it is the families that are actually making the greatest contribution when there is a loss of life.’

It is quite appropriate and long overdue, in my opinion, that we extend better entitlements to veterans and their families, as this bill does. Labor promised these improved benefits during the election campaign and here we are delivering on our promise early in the term of this new parliament. We could reflect on the 12 years that we have had in the past to move the sorts of actions contained in this bill; I am just glad that we have them in hand and are doing them. The Rudd Labor government have acted quickly to implement these much needed initiatives to improve the support that we provide to our veterans, our ADF members and their families. It is indeed a pleasure to commend the bill to the House.

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

At the outset of my contribution to this debate, I would like to acknowledge the contribution that veterans have made to our community, to our country and to our nation over the years. Without their contribution Australia would not be the country it is today and we would not enjoy the quality of life or the lifestyle that we do in this country. Each and every member on this side of the House acknowledges that contribution and the sacrifices that veterans have made for our nation over the years.

It is because we are so aware of the contribution that veterans have made to Australia over such a very, very long time that this government has provided a record amount of spending on veterans in this year’s budget. In fact that record amount of spending is $11.5 billion. I know it makes all members of the Rudd government proud to stand up in this place and say: ‘We have delivered to the veterans. We have delivered to the veterans community. We haven’t ignored them because they are old and frail. We’ve acknowledged the fact that their contribution is worthy of our recognition by financially supporting them.’

This bill contains three measures that were part of our 2007 election commitments. Once again I would like to emphasise to the House that the Rudd government is about delivering on our election commitments. We do not make a commitment and then turn our back on it. We deliver. We said that we would deliver to veterans and that is exactly what we are doing. This bill extends the income support supplement to war widows and widowers under the qualifying age without dependants. It extends the disability pension bereavement payments with respect to single veterans or members in receipt of the special rate or extreme disablement adjustment pension who die without sufficient assets to pay for a funeral. There is an automatic grant of war widows or widowers pensions to widows or widowers of veterans or members in receipt of the temporary special rate or intermediate rate disability pension immediately before their death. As I have said, these were commitments to the veteran community, and they are commitments we have delivered on.

The extension of the income support supplement to war widows and war widowers under the qualifying age without dependants is very important. It will benefit approximately 1,400 widows or widowers under the VEA and wholly dependent partners under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 who are under that pension age and currently are not entitled to income support. We recognise that this is a vital change, something that will really help those widows and widowers. The measure removes the requirement for war widows or widowers to be over the pension age, have a dependent child, be permanently incapacitated or be the partner of a person receiving an income support pension. Payment of the income support supplement on the grounds of permanent incapacity will be retained in order for incapacitated war widows or widowers and wholly dependent partners who are under the pension age to continue to access their income support supplement as a tax-free payment. This provides additional support for younger war widows or widowers and wholly dependent partners during that postbereavement period. Members of this parliament would be very aware of just how hard it is for a younger widow or widower to come to terms with the loss of their partner, and we are recognising this in this legislation.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am indeed.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the Government Whip accept the question?

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

Most definitely; I welcome it.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the light of the member’s concerns about younger spouses of veterans, does she support the proposal which will extract $35 million in payments to veterans’ spouses by increasing the qualifying age announced last night from 50 to 58.5 years of age?

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

The member asks a very good question. In answering this, I would have to point out to the member that this is a responsible budget. This is a budget that is attacking the problems that have been created by the Howard government. It is making some hard decisions. The Howard government did not deliver in any shape or form to veterans, and this is a financially responsible budget. In this budget, as the member identified, there is a reduction in eligibility for the partner service pension, and the change will take effect in July 2008. This change was made in response to broader community expectations that people should be participating in paid employment. That is something that the previous Howard government championed, to the extent that I had coming to my office on a regular basis women with disabled children who had to jump through hoops in order to get a Newstart payment. It was something that the Howard government pursued mercilessly during their time in government. That proposal is only expected to affect around 400 people; the legislation we are debating here today will benefit 1,400 people.

It is interesting that the member jumps up and becomes a champion for these people now, when the Howard government constantly attacked the most vulnerable people in the community on a regular basis. I must say I have not seen the member championing disadvantaged people in this parliament; rather, I saw him and his colleagues standing up in the House when they were in government and introducing and speaking to the most draconian legislation, which had the most enormous impact on vulnerable people in our community.

I would say to the member, in answer to his question, that I find it the height of hypocrisy that he would stand up here today and try to fault a budget that provides record spending on veterans of $11.59 billion. I thought that the member would be celebrating the increase in money to the veterans community rather than picking up on one small area where there has been a reduction, which is in line with the overall community expectation that people participate in the paid workforce wherever possible rather than call on taxpayer funded income support. This is a member who has time and time again voted for legislation that has attacked the most vulnerable people in our community. I think he should hang his head in shame.

Whilst I am talking about this budget, I would like, for the benefit of the member opposite, to go through a little bit of what is in it. I feel he needs to be enlightened. He needs to learn about the enormous respect for and contribution to the veteran community of the Rudd government. At the same time as we are delivering to the veterans community we are dealing with the inflation and the problems that have been created by the previous government, so we have had a pretty hard job to do. We have had to look after those people in the community that look to government for support but at the same time to clean up the mess that was left behind. This $11.5 billion budget for veterans’ affairs includes $6.34 billion in compensation for income support pensions and $4.87 billion in funding for health and health services. That is very important when you have an ageing population, and our veteran population is an ageing population. It is particularly vulnerable and needs to be able to rely on health and health services. Under the previous government there were enormous problems with accessing health services for veterans. At one stage, because of the underfunding by the previous government, many doctors refused to accept the gold card because the government of the day had eroded the value of it. I am sure that the member opposite welcomes that $4.87 billion in funding for health and health services.

The Rudd government is also delivering on its election promise to restore the value of veterans compensation. It is very important for veterans that are relying on that compensation. It is very important for the member opposite and for all of us to remember that the bulk of veterans and war widows live on fixed incomes and therefore have a greater appreciation of the need to manage Australia’s inflation. As members would know, when you are on a fixed income and you have to pay more for food and more for fuel, it gets harder and harder each day. The challenges are enormous. You have to make decisions about whether to put petrol in the car to drive to the doctor or to put food on the table or about whether or not you can afford to pay for medicines, to visit your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren or to buy any luxuries at all. We understand how vitally important it is to our veteran community to get rid of the inflationary pressures that are a legacy of the previous government.

This budget includes $3 million over three years to help ensure all veterans have access to the support available through Operation Life regardless of where they live in Australia. The budget also includes $20.2 million to carry through the government’s commitment to secure the future of the historic Graythwaite estate in North Sydney and for the provision of aged care services through New South Wales RSL. The provision of aged care services and the commitments made in the budget in relation to aged care services are vital for our veterans community. I am sure all members, particularly those on this side of the House, recognise just how important they are to the veterans community. Ex-service organisations across Australia will now have access to additional financial assistance for their work supporting the veterans community. Without that support by those RSL welfare officers, those working in the RSL assisting veterans—and I thank them enormously for the work they do—the veterans community would be a lot poorer and would be gravely disadvantaged. Those organisations will also be able to access additional funds through the BEST and TIP programs.

These are vital programs. Total additional funding of $14.9 million is being made available over four years, and that includes in 2007-08. There is $6.9 million over three years. That is for those programs. The Rudd government has recognised the role that many veterans play in caring for sick and elderly partners. That is why we have allocated the carers payment, the carers budget bonus, for people on carers allowance and people who are carers who receive a service pension. Some of those people will be receiving up to $1,600. That is in recognition of their contribution. There has also been the change to the utility allowance earlier this year. I think what all this really demonstrates is the commitment of the Rudd government to veterans.

This legislation also provides for an extension of the disability pension bereavement payments. The bereavement payment will be extended under the VEA to the estate of a single recipient—that is, a person who is single; who is in receipt of a special rate, an extreme disability adjustment rate of the disability pension; who dies in indigent circumstances. What that really means is that, if you are a veteran in receipt of one of those benefits and the value of your estate is not sufficient to cover all your liabilities, including your funeral expenses, then that will be taken care of. I think that is very important. These measures are intended to support families of veterans towards meeting the cost of funerals where the deceased dies without sufficient assets to pay for the funeral. I do not think there would be a person in this place who would like to see one of our veterans unable to be buried and put to rest in the manner in which they deserve. Those veterans have been out there, have fought for our country and have contributed to our nation. As I said at the commencement of my contribution to this debate, their contribution has been enormous. The least that we can do is give them a good send-off.

The payment will be made to the estate of the deceased veteran. This measure is expected to commence on 1 July 2008. The bereavement payment consists of a one-off payment of 12 weeks worth of the special rate of the EDA rate of disability pension. It is estimated that the measure will benefit around eight special rate and 15 EDA single pension families per year. That, I think, is worth while.

The legislation also extends the automatic grant of war widow or war widower pensions. The VEA provides for the automatic granting of war widow or widower pensions to the widows or widowers of certain classes of disability pensioners, such as those receiving the TPI or the EDA. The measure extends the automatic grant to partners of deceased veterans or members who were receiving the temporary special rate or the disability pension under the VEA. The aim of this measure is to provide some peace of mind to these veterans and their families. The measure will commence on 1 July. These measures provide war widows and widowers access to the support supplement and the gold card for treatment. It is expected to benefit approximately 23 war widows or widowers per year. Once again, it is something that is going to improve circumstances for our veterans.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest to the member opposite that he should really think carefully before he raises issues about the Rudd government’s treatment of our veterans. The Rudd government has increased the commitment to our veterans enormously. He should hang his head in shame when he thinks about the way the government he was part of attacked the most vulnerable people in our community. (Time expired)

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008. This bill is about extending three entitlements which currently exist for the veterans community. First and foremost, this is a bill which is about honouring the commitments that Rudd Labor made in the lead-up to the 2007 election. This represents the mantra of this government: what we took to the election, the promises we made in that election, will be what we ultimately do when we are in government—and what we are doing in government. There is no distinction on this side of the House between a promise which is described as a core promise, and a non-core promise. If it is a promise that has been taken to the election, if it is a promise upon which people voted at that election, then that forms part of the mandate of the government and that mandate will be fulfilled.

This stands in stark contrast to the manner in which the previous government operated in the implementation of the Work Choices legislation. It was the single biggest piece of legislation in the last term of that government and yet not a word about it was breathed in the 2004 election, which gave rise to that term of government. What we now see with the Rudd government is a very different way of operating. It will act upon the promises it takes to an election and make sure that they form the heart of the program the government then implements.

In this bill we have two entitlements that it is estimated will apply to only about 23 families each. Despite that, it was a promise that we took to the election and it is a promise that we now fulfil. One of the extensions to the entitlements contained in this bill is estimated to cost only about $100,000. But it was a promise we took to the last election and it is a promise that we will fulfil in government.

Turning to the bill, there are three extensions to the entitlements which currently exist in the veterans community. The most significant of those in terms of the number of people that will be affected is contained in schedule 2 of the bill. This represents an extension of the income support supplement which is paid to war widows and war widowers. Right now, war widows and war widowers receive the income support supplement if they have attained the qualifying age of 60 for men or 58½ for women and if they have a dependent child, if they are permanently incapacitated as defined under section 45AA of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 or if they are the partner of a person in receipt of certain pensions.

This list of criteria, which is the basis for receiving the income support supplement at the moment, is both outdated and unfair. It is creating a level of injustice within the veterans community. This bill and this particular extension to the existing entitlement will extend the income support supplement to those widows and widowers who are under the current entitlement age and who have no dependants. Effectively what that does is remove these outdated and unfair criteria which exist at present. This will therefore have the effect of making all war widows and all war widowers eligible for the income support supplement. This will particularly help younger war widows and widowers, and it will obviously help them deal with their bereavement as a result of the death of their loved one and adjust to what will then become a very different life. It is estimated that this extension to the entitlement will apply to 1,400 new families in the veterans community—1,400 families who are currently not receiving that income support supplement. It is a fairer way of applying that entitlement and it is a far more modern way of applying that entitlement.

There are two other extensions to existing entitlements which are smaller in the number of people that will be affected but which are just as significant in terms of the impact that they will have upon those people. The first is contained in schedule 3 of the bill and it involves extending the current bereavement payment. At present there is currently a bereavement payment paid to widows and widowers of veterans which is equivalent to 12 weeks of the disability pension. This is obviously paid with a view to helping defray the costs of funeral expenses and, indeed, with the immediate adjustment to life after the death of their partner. What this extension will do is provide the bereavement payment to the estates of veterans who die in indigent circumstances—that is, veterans who die in circumstances where their estate is unable to cover their costs. In such circumstances at the moment, often the funeral expenses for such veterans are being covered by extended family. By extending this entitlement to veterans who die in indigent circumstances, it will provide significant relief to the extended families of those veterans. It is important to note that that will be a tax-free payment.

The final extension of an entitlement which currently exists is the extension of the automatic grant of the war widow and war widower pension. At present, war widows and war widowers whose partner was in receipt of certain pensions immediately prior to their death are automatically granted the war widow or war widower pension. What this extension will do is add to that list of pensions—which is the basis of that criteria—two additional pensions, which therefore extends the criteria. We will then have a situation under this bill where war widows or war widowers will automatically be granted that pension if their partner was a veteran who, immediately prior to their death, was in receipt of the temporary special rate disability pension and the intermediate rate disability pension—again, an important extension for those families. Each of these entitlements will become available from 1 July 2008—that is, this year. Taken as a whole, this represents a package which will significantly improve the amount that is paid to the veteran community. It represents the high esteem in which the veteran community is held by the Rudd Labor government.

There is no place where that esteem is held higher than in my electorate in the city of Geelong. There is a resurgent interest in Geelong, as indeed there is I think around Australia, in Australia’s military history, in those who have served in Australia’s military and in honouring our veteran community. Geelong’s military history is perhaps best exemplified in the person of Albert Jacka. Albert Jacka, of course, is famous for being Australia’s first Victoria Cross winner in the First World War. Albert Jacka was born in Winchelsea in the Geelong region and was raised there. He was born in 1893. He enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force, the AIF, on 8 September 1914 and was then assigned to the 14th Battalion 4th Brigade of the 1st Division of the AIF.

He arrived in Egypt on 31 January 1915, along with thousands of other Australians who for the first time were seeing a much wider world and who were engaging in what they thought was to be their great life adventure—and, of course, for many, that is what occurred. Albert Jacka went on to fight at Gallipoli and, in an extraordinary confrontation with two of his comrades, he was involved in an engagement with the enemy in open ground where he reclaimed a position which is known as Courtney’s Post. For that he won the Victoria Cross—as I said, the first Victoria Cross that was won by an Australian in the great war. His citation read:

On 19/20 May 1915, at “Courtney’s Post”, Gallipoli, Turkey, Lance Corporal Jacka, while holding a portion of our trench with four other men, was heavily attacked. When all except himself were killed or wounded, and the trench was rushed and occupied by seven Turks, Lance Corporal Jacka most gallantly attacked them single handed, killing the whole party, five by rifle and two with the bayonet.

It is said that when Albert Jacka’s commanding officer came to the trench shortly after that engagement he found Albert Jacka sitting there calmly amongst the dead with a cigarette in his mouth and he simply said, ‘I managed to get the beggars, Sir,’ which, in a sense, is a very laconic statement of the Australian character—an Australian character which has very much been defined by the actions of our servicemen in conflict.

From there, Albert Jacka went on to serve in Europe throughout the First World War. In May 1918 he was injured. He suffered a gassing and an injury to his trachea. It was felt at the time that he would not survive but he did, and he returned to Australia in September 1919. Albert Jacka went on to become the mayor of St Kilda. He died in 1931 because, it is thought, of his war wounds, and he was buried in the St Kilda Cemetery.

I take you through that story partly because it is the description of Geelong’s greatest military hero, but it is also worth remembering that in the person of Albert Jacka, a person who died very prematurely, really, at the age of 38, of war wounds, we had somebody who, even with such a short life, spent most of his life as a veteran. Albert Jacka won his Victoria Cross at the age of 22. He came back to Australia at the age of 26, but he spent most of his adult life as a veteran—a veteran suffering a wound that he had incurred in the service of his nation. It speaks volumes about the life that those who have served our country experience and how important it is that we provide for veterans in our community and honour their legacy and the service they have given. Of course, this bill is very much aimed at doing that.

In Geelong we have a significant veterans community. It was my great privilege earlier this year, on 4 March, to participate in a local flag-raising ceremony. The flag that previously existed at this particular place had become tatty and they wanted a new Australian flag, so it was a great honour for me to participate in a flag-raising ceremony with Rodney Meeke, the President of the Geelong RSL, at the RSL Village Geelong in Bell Park. It was a wonderful occasion. The RSL Village Geelong in Bell Park is a very significant institution for providing support to veterans. There are veterans who live there who have fought in a number of conflicts in Australia’s history dating back to World War II. At the RSL Village Geelong in Bell Park I had the real honour of meeting Ed Patterson, a veteran of the Kokoda campaign. As I stood in his kitchen, I listened enthralled as he told stories of the conflict that occurred on the Kokoda Track and his experiences there, and I felt incredibly honoured that a person of his service—a person who had participated in such an important moment in our country’s history, at such an important moment in defining both the identity and the independence of our country—was living amongst us. I think that the sense of honour that I felt in being in the presence of Ed Patterson is reflected, I believe, in the renewed sense that we see across Australia in commemorating the service that our veterans have given but also celebrating them within our community now.

I think we have seen that in the resurgence in the number of people who have participated in Anzac Day ceremonies, and that of course occurred in Geelong last Anzac Day. Lots of veterans—and not only veterans but people from the whole community in Geelong—participated in the various Anzac Day ceremonies that occurred last month. In the pre-dawn service at Johnson Park, which is the main park in the centre of Geelong, it was estimated that the attendance was up by 25 per cent on the previous year, and indeed that previous year had had a record attendance. At the mid-morning service at 11.30 am in Johnson Park, which is the service that attracts the largest number of people in Geelong, there were 7½ thousand people participating in that event, an incredible number really. I had the honour of being at that event and sitting on the stage and being able to see that whole crowd in front of us. Again it was estimated that that represented a 15 per cent increase on the previous best turnout.

There is a really significant phenomenon that is going on in Geelong, and of course going on across Australia, in terms of the people who are participating in these events. I think what it says is that people are searching for an identity in the events that have occurred in our military history, and that is rightly so because our military history has gone a long way to defining the character of our country. It is therefore very important to understand the role that our veterans have played in contributing to the character and the identity of our nation. Of course, that is a character and an identity which we in the Rudd Labor government, and I am sure those on the other side, are very much keen to celebrate and honour. What this bill represents is an attempt at doing that—at making sure that the package of this suite of entitlements is improved for veterans—and in doing that we honour the legacy of their service and we place the veterans in an appropriate position of respect within our community.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I would like to talk about the Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (2007 Election Commitments) Bill 2008 but more about those within our community who do a lot of work and support veterans and others. Just as a little bit of a run-through of the bill itself, this is an election promise that has been delivered, providing more money for veterans and their families. In addition to the $6.34 billion this government will spend on compensation and income support pensions, this record veterans affairs budget provides $4 million for veteran mental health, focusing on the vital area of suicide prevention; $14.9 million over four years to ex-service organisations to boost their capacity to support the veteran community; and $20 million to secure the future of the historic Graythwaite estate in North Sydney and the provision of aged services provided by the RSL. This is in contrast to the previous government, who never funded their promises. Veterans did not have to wait for this budget to benefit from the change of government. Effective from 20 March, the veteran community received increased pensions for war widows, widowers and disability pensioners via fairer indexation—indexation of up to $1,045 each per year—increased carers payments of between $600 and $1,600 per carer and increased telephone and utilities allowance. The federal budget overall is a financially responsible budget. The bulk of veterans and war widows live on fixed incomes and therefore have a greater appreciation of the need to manage Australia’s inflationary pressures.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the member, if that would be acceptable.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member allow a question?

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take a question.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In light of the member’s concerns about price rises and impacts on veterans’ families, does the member for Forde support the increase in the age for the receipt of pensions for veterans’ partners from 50 years to 58½, an 8½-year increase overnight in the complying age?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member’s question must be brief. Thank you.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would prefer to take that on notice and maybe provide more information. I am happy to have a discussion outside this session, and I will certainly take that on notice. I am happy to respond. I would certainly talk about some of your colleagues in opposition who were not in attendance at particular important events. I am going to talk about that a little bit and then we can talk about some of the financial concerns that you may have.

This is a Rudd government initiative and we have delivered on our election commitment as we promised, and detail has been provided by the other speakers. I really want to pay tribute today to those who have supported the veterans—not only their spouses, who finally have received some benefit for their sacrifices, but many of the community groups like the RSL and other veterans associations who have worked in the background. Without their support and representation, we would not have been able to direct the best benefits to those veterans and their families.

In the electorate of Forde—and that is probably my major concern—we have a large number of returned service men and women. Of course, the measures in our record budget—currently the measures benefit only 400 people—will provide a benefit to 1,400 veterans of campaigns and their families. The electorate of Forde, as I have said, has a large number of people and a large number of community organisations that support those veterans. I was privileged to represent the Prime Minister at a function on the Gold Coast on the weekend to commemorate the Battle of the Coral Sea. It was well attended. The American consul general was there representing the American President and he spoke on behalf of the President. I delivered the Prime Minister’s address and we also had a response from the captain of the USS Cleveland, which is currently in Brisbane. Interestingly enough, while I am not the member for that area, the members of the three Gold Coast seats were invited but none of them saw fit to actually attend the ceremony. Yes, they may have had other pressing engagements, but it was a little bit obvious and concerning to those who had organised the event and who have had a very good relationship with both sides of government that, as a representative of the government, I was the only one there, when the function was not in my electorate.

Putting that aside, I would like to comment on those in the community of Forde who have supported veterans for a long time. A lot of these changes have been made not simply because we understood overnight that there was concern but because of those within the community organisations—the RSL and veterans groups. I particularly mention a number of people: from the Beenleigh RSL, Tom Childs and Richard Hetherington; Joe Mulders from the Tambourine RSL; and from another community organisation, RSL veterans’ affairs, Bill Meiers and Gaven Thurlow, who work with the Vietnam vets. These are people who have shown a lot of concern and have been frustrated for many years that government was not listening to them. During the election campaign we found, as our election commitments have proved, that there was a huge need. As I said earlier, as early as March this year we provided changes that led into this budget round.

I would also like to reflect on my own personal experiences. My grandfather, who died in the early seventies, was a Gallipoli veteran. Of course, the government of the day did not see fit to provide the sorts of benefits that we are providing now. I know that it was very, very difficult for my family. My grandfather was highly decorated, but that came at a huge personal sacrifice to his family and he was never given any recognition. Likewise, my other grandfather, who was a veteran of the Somme, was tragically killed in the 1960s in a motor car accident that left my grandmother quite devastated financially and otherwise.

It is clear that we can send people off to war—and the other side of government seems to have more of a penchant for that than we do—but on their return it is about looking after our veterans and their families. As the Prime Minister said in parliament yesterday, it is the families that make a lot of the sacrifices. Not only do they lose a family member to a campaign but also on their return they confront other issues. As I said, I have been involved with members of our local RSLs for some time and it is quite terrible to see people who have served their countries not getting the sort of support that we are now providing in our budget.

To hark back to the commemoration of the Battle of the Coral Sea that I attended on the weekend, that battle has a particular interest for me. I grew up in a family in which, while I had no military service myself, both my mother and my father had served in the Second World War. My mother in fact was in the Women’s Air Force and was stationed in Townsville. She was actually landside when the Battle of the Coral Sea was occurring. She was a spotter and a plotter of enemy aircraft.

Up until about five years ago, the government would not recognise her service or the service of other females who served landside in those battles. They had to declare, finally, that Townsville was a battle zone. She is now 87 and doing very well, but in her early 80s she was told that she could not have benefits that other veterans may have had. It was the RSL that came on board and supported the changes that we have made in this legislation, which will certainly go a long way to resolving those issues.

In terms of the advocacy that the RSL and other organisations provide, I would certainly like to pay special tribute to Noel Payne, who works in my electorate. Noel Payne served in the Royal Navy from 1965 to 1975. With all that previous service, Noel has been an advocate for people who have issues with government pensions and entitlements. I suspect that, after our legislative changes, Noel may not have as much work to do in that advocacy process because a lot of the issues he was fighting for are now looked at and considered in our bill. Noel was awarded an OAM for his services because, as I said, he has given a lot of time and commitment to this. Being a returned service person himself, and with legal training, he understands the issues and is able to advocate for people who have not been considered within previous legislation and payments.

As I said, my family were involved in the military for a number of generations. So it is good for me to be part of this government and the consideration of this bill and its changes in the House. I would like to close by saying that it is an issue that we have considered long and hard. Community organisations within the seat of Forde will be applauding this particular change. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Kelly) adjourned.