Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Does the government believe that over 70,000 veterans who fought for our country and 700 widow B pensioners whose husbands made the ultimate sacrifice are not worth a $30-a-week increase in their pensions to offset the rising cost of living?

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

There is a certain aspect of this question which the opposition has once again got wrong. The figure of 70,000 single-service pensioners the shadow minister has referred to actually takes into account a number of different groups. In fact, if we go to veterans who are single service pensioners, only around 35,000 are included in the definitions that the opposition sought to put forward in their motion. Some 28,000 of that figure of 70,000 are in fact on partner service pensions. They are overwhelmingly the widows of veterans who had qualifying service and who have of course passed away. They do not qualify as war widows. The definition put forward in the proposal by the opposition specifically excluded them, because it referred to veterans only.

This government, in its policy when in opposition, led the way for the then government to address issues with respect to the maintenance of the incomes of our most disabled veterans. This government, both in opposition and in government, has led the way to address some of those longstanding issues. There is more to do, and the government has made it very clear that there is. But the fact of the matter is this: the opposition put forward the figure of 70,000 single service pensioners but, when you go to the detail of what they proposed, they are only covering half of that number. Once again, they have left out thousands and thousands in a rush to put forward a policy option which does not deal with the inherent problems that they say they are dealing with. Once again, they have missed the point.