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

I rise today to speak on a bill that amends legislation relating to family assistance, child support and veterans affairs. The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 provides three schedules for further budget measures and other measures affecting the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Veterans’ Affairs, and Human Services portfolios. Schedule 1 relates to the maternity immunisation allowance and aligns the maternity immunisation allowance with the National Immunisation Program regarding payment of the allowance. Schedule 1 also extends eligibility for the allowance to children adopted from overseas. These amendments will be reflected in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, referred to as the family assistance act, and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, referred to as the family assistance administration act, and will commence on 1 January 2009.

The second schedule amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and relates to the partner service pension entitlement. Schedule 2 is a budget measure that ceases eligibility for the payment of the partner service pension to those partners of veterans who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached age pension age. There are two parts to schedule 2. The first measure is to introduce a cut-off point when eligibility ceases. The second measure is to reduce the eligibility age to 50 years for partner service pension for the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate disability pension, or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This measure is a good thing, but it is evidence of Labor not understanding the veteran community when they introduced the legislation earlier in the year and increased the age eligibility. It is proof of policy on the run.

Additional amendments in the schedule make minor changes to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act consequent upon the enactment of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. It is expected that this schedule will commence from 1 July 2009, and the forecast savings in the first Labor budget are expected to be approximately $77.8 million over four years.

Schedule 3 removes a number of anomalies in relation to the new child support formula reforms that commenced on 1 July 2008. Minor amendments to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, referred to as the assessment act, and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, referred to as the registration and collection act, are set out in seven parts covering percentage of care, publication of reasons for decisions of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, departure from assessments, terminating events, reducing rate of child support under minimum annual rate assessments, overseas liabilities and crediting prescribed payments. The amendments will ensure a more balanced and flexible way of working out child support payments and will affect all parents who receive or pay child support.

Reforms to the child support system were announced by the coalition in 2006 and received bipartisan support. The reforms were introduced in July 2008. Amendments in schedules 1 and 3 are welcome and build on initiatives introduced by the coalition when in government. The coalition successfully increased the funding for and rates of immunisation. In 1996, the coalition built on the National Immunisation Strategy, which evolved into the Immunise Australia seven-point plan in 1997. By that time, the coalition had introduced the pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccination programs. In 1995, immunisation rates for children from birth to six years were as low as 52 per cent. Since the introduction of the Immunise Australia program, childhood immunisation rates have increased to an all-time high, with over 90 per cent of children aged 12 to 15 months fully immunised.

In 1996, Australian government expenditure on vaccines was $13 million and by the following year expenditure had increased to $443.2 million—a 34-fold increase. The coalition in government was serious about reducing childhood diseases and ensuring Australia was a healthy nation, and this continues. For an immunisation program to be effective, the coalition knew that parents had to participate. The first initiative directed towards parents was to provide a bonus through a restructured maternity allowance. From 1998, this payment was paid in two instalments, the first at birth and the second at 18 months. The second payment is known as the maternity immunisation allowance. The allowance paid to parents is a strong incentive to ensure a child’s immunisation program completes the five key childhood immunisation milestones—at two, four, six, 12 and 18 months of age.

A second initiative introduced in 1998 was directed towards parents in relation to childcare rebates. From 27 April 1998, families applying for childcare assistance and the childcare cash rebate were required to demonstrate that their child was fully immunised. On 1 July 2000, both childcare assistance and the childcare cash rebate were replaced by a new payment called the childcare benefit. Provisions were made for parents who do not have their children immunised due to medical contraindications or conscientious objection.

Schedule 1 introduces a split payment by paying the maternity immunisation allowance, MIA, for children who meet the 18-months and four-year-old immunisation requirements. Currently, eligibility for the maternity immunisation allowance is limited to children up to the age of two and is paid only once. Schedule 1 introduces split payment and extends eligibility for children up to the age of five. Schedule 1 also introduces eligibility for children born outside Australia and adopted prior to entering Australia. The adoption process does not have to be finalised at the time the child enters Australia, but the child must be entrusted to the care of the person adopting the child by an authorised person and arrive in Australia while under the age of 16.

I return now to schedule 2, an amendment which the coalition opposes. The new amendment seeks to contain certain budget and non-budget measures that affect veterans and their families either receiving or eligible to receive the partner service pension entitlement. These veterans and their families are getting a very poor deal from the Labor government. While this government adjusted its budget upwards, with projected gross savings of $77.8 million by the proposed changes to veterans entitlements in schedule 2, ordinary Australians—partners of veterans—faced with changed family relationships will, if this bill is accepted without amendment, from 1 January 2009, have to adjust their household budget downward as a result of those changes. In the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008, presented by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the government abandoned veterans’ partners and planned to cut off the pension from partners who had separated from, but did not divorce, their veteran partner. Veterans and their families already have had to adjust their household budgets because of the increased cost of living. This bill will add further financial pressure.

Why is the government going against its own policy in relation to veterans entitlements and the partner service pension? It is important to make this point: the partner service pension is not a pension in the sense of a welfare payment; it is an entitlement paid in respect of, and acknowledgement for, the veterans’ special circumstances—the intangible effects of war that may result in premature ageing, loss of earning power through illness or injury and the many other pressures of service in the armed forces. Veterans and their families, particularly spouses and partners, have given much to this nation, in many instances laying their lives on the line. They have sacrificed much. We pay tribute to partners and spouses who love and support our veterans.

The effects of service, especially for those who have served in war zones, vary from person to person, but there are effects just the same. The coalition acknowledges and respects the sacrifices veterans and their families have made in the service of this nation. In the Labor government’s budget 2008-09, they made a commitment to being responsive and meeting the needs of a changing ex-service community with a focus on aged care, World War II veterans and the needs of younger veterans and members. This was touted as a key focus, but the Labor Party do not respect veterans and their families; otherwise, they would not strip away entitlements and force people who are already in stressful circumstances through relationship breakdown onto welfare. This is especially true of partners who separate and where there may be children involved. Under this bill, these separated partners will be forced to find a job or to go onto Centrelink payments. That is welfare. That is another cut that hurts the defence community deeply. The veterans community and the coalition agree on this point. A service pension is not a welfare payment; it is an entitlement. It is acknowledgement of the sacrifices and special circumstances of defence families, of veteran families. We should be grateful for these wonderful men and women who rise to whatever challenges are thrown their way and do a job that we cannot do. The Labor Party are not grateful and lack understanding of our veteran community.

Eligibility applies to those partners who are separated by illness or who separate but do not enter a marriage-like relationship with another person for up to 12 months after separation. Once the 12 months are up, the payment is cut off. The coalition, back in May 2008, criticised the government for raising the age eligibility, and rightly so. The criticism is as valid today as it was then for the way in which the age eligibility threshold was changed from 50 years of age to 58.5 years of age for women and to 60 years of age for men and now back again. This was no incremental jump but a gigantic leap that shifted the financial goalposts for many families that had planned for that pension. Why did the government do this? To save money, they say.

But I put to the government that the real reason is to shift veterans entitlements from the department’s budget onto welfare payments. It was a slash-and-burn decision with no consideration for the emotional, financial or social impact on vulnerable partners. This is typical of a Labor government that does not have a good record of economic management and is desperate to get some traction on economic management but has no idea that this is not the way to go. It has made a mistake by lifting that age threshold and is now caught in the backlash from the veterans community. Just as Labor is suffering a backlash by refusing to support the $30 per week rise for single age pensions, single service pensions and widow B pensions, this bill denies a benefit to partners of veterans after they have separated. This is short-sighted at a time when cost-of-living pressures, fuel, groceries and rent—and the list goes on—are placing significant burdens on veterans, their partners and their families. When they are separating, both partners in or both members of a relationship face challenges. This is a time when such government action can further exacerbate the challenges faced by all concerned. The coalition opposes the changes to the partner service pension where people are separated but not divorced. The coalition strongly believes that veterans and their partners, the men and women who support our veterans, are entitled to special entitlements and support as a way of recognising the contribution and sacrifice that our servicemen and servicewomen have made in service to our country.

During the election campaign, the current Prime Minister promised the veterans community that veterans would not be worse off under a Rudd Labor government. This bill makes a mockery of that election promise. In the very first budget of the Labor government these two measures ripped $113 million out of veterans entitlements. How is that ensuring veterans are not worse off? Their partners, once the couple are separated, only have 12 months of support before they have to apply to Centrelink. There is immediate termination of the partner service pension payment if the veteran enters a new marriage-like relationship.

Since 1962 Australia has been engaged in war zones in Vietnam, from 1962 to 1975; Somalia, from 1992 to 1994; East Timor, from 1999 to 2003; Afghanistan, from 2001 to the present; and Iraq, from 2003 to the present. This time frame of 1962 to 2008 is 46 years. Consider servicemen or servicewomen who married sometime in those 46 years or who are in a marriage-like relationship and who are now reaching the age of 50. They have to endure another 8.5 years or 10 years before they are eligible for income support. What happens if they separate when their partner reaches the eligibility age? If the veteran begins a new marriage-like relationship, the former partner has to immediately find a job or apply for Newstart, which is a welfare payment to support people while they look for a job. With the shift upwards of eligibility thresholds for the age pension, the gap between Newstart and the age pension is problematic and adds further financial pressure to the distressing situation of a broken relationship. How can the Labor Party do this to people? I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment in relation to the changes to the partner service pension.

The final part of the bill is schedule 3, and I have already covered a number of amendments to the new child support system. It is worth reflecting on what these changes will mean to the parents, either payers or payees, in this system. The new Australian Child Support Scheme commenced on 1 July 2008 with bipartisan support. Schedule 3, which deals with child support, makes minor technical amendments but will ensure the system is more transparent and equitable. The amendment as to percentage of care will enable the registrar to determine changes in the percentage of care undertaken by a parent to be reflected in the child support assessment. Another amendment allows internal review decisions of the registrar that are reviewable by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to be communicated to a person authorised by the secretary to undertake publication in a de-identified form to ensure privacy of a party or a witness to the proceedings. A third minor amendment relates to mechanisms to amend child support assessments, where appropriate, to take into account high childcare costs for non-carer parents. This is necessary because currently a non-parent carer, unlike a parent, is required to provide income details for child support purposes.

A fourth amendment clarifies circumstances in which the administrative assessment of child support will terminate. Reducing the rate of child support under minimum annual rate assessments will now be able to be done by the registrar where a minimum annual rate has been assessed and the parent’s income is below the formula for a 12-month period. In the case of parents with additional overseas liabilities in reciprocating jurisdictions, those liabilities are reflected in the new child support formula. It allows the registrar to issue a departure prohibition order in respect of outstanding child support obligations where appropriate. The final amendment to the child support system clarifies the rule whereby prescribed payments, such as school fees or necessary medical expenses for the child, can be credited in substitution for payment to the registrar.

These amendments are welcome improvements to the child support system. Reforms to the child support system were initiated by the coalition in response to concerns raised by paying parents and payee parents in the system. The reforms were adopted by the Rudd Labor government. The amendments proposed in schedules 1 and 3 of this bill are acceptable to the coalition. Schedule 2 is being opposed by the opposition. I now move the foreshadowed amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading the House:

(1)

notes the Coalition’s support for the provisions concerning the maternity immunisation allowance and child support;

(2)

notes the Coalition’s agreement to setting at 50 years of age eligibility for partner service pension for the partners of veterans who are in receipt of the equivalent of or less than the special rate but above the general rate disability, or who have at least 80 impairment points;

(3)

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

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I will be talking in particular about schedule 1 in relation to my support for this legislation. The bill will provide for certain further budget measures and other non-budget measures affecting the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs portfolios. The measures allow for the payment of the maternity immunisation allowance in two instalments and extended eligibility for children adopted from overseas, the ceasing of the payment of the partner service pension for married partners who are separated but not divorced and minor technical amendments to child support.

I will now look at the bill in a little more detail, paying attention in particular to schedule 1. Schedule 1 makes amendments to better align the maternity immunisation allowance with the National Immunisation Program by paying the allowance in two equal payments for children who meet the 18-month and four-year-old immunisation requirements. Recipients of the maternity immunisation allowance may also be eligible if they have an approved immunisation exemption for their children. Exemptions may be granted if there is a conscientious objection to the immunisation or if there are medical reasons why the child should not be immunised. The maternity immunisation allowance is currently a one-off, lump sum payment of $236.70. It is paid for children immunised to the level recommended for an 18-month-old child. The payment must be claimed on or before the child’s second birthday and is not means tested. The payment was designed to provide an incentive to encourage parents to vaccinate their children before the age of two years. The payment is indexed twice a year—in March and September. The maternity immunisation allowance was paid to around 247,000 children in 2006-07 at a cost of $56.2 million. It is estimated that 38,500 of them were the children of parents who had valid immunisation exemption reasons, including 2,500 children of conscientious objectors.

The measure of paying the allowance in two equal payments aims to increase the proportion of four-year-old children in Australia who are fully immunised. The existing single lump sum payment provides an incentive for parents to have their children immunised at 18 months but does not provide a similar incentive for parents to have their four-year-olds immunised. As at 30 December 2007, 93 per cent of children aged between 24 months and 27 months were fully immunised. The proportion of older children who are fully immunised is lower, with approximately 88 per cent of children fully immunised at the age of six. Vaccinations for four-year-olds, as recommended in the National Immunisation Program, currently include diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles and polio. The maternity immunisation allowance is also given if a child is stillborn or dies before reaching two years of age.

The bill will also extend the allowance to children who are adopted from outside Australia who enter Australia before turning 16 and are immunised appropriately after arrival. It will also make minor modifications to the rules for determining entitlement to the allowance. This particular part of the schedule is very close to my heart. I was adopted from New Zealand when I was three months old. Obviously the allowance was not available at that time, but there are considerable expenses for parents adopting children from overseas. It is a very welcome thing that those people who go through the difficult process of adopting children from overseas—and I must say that New Zealand is probably one of the easiest countries from which to adopt someone—will be able to make sure that their children are equally protected when they are in Australia. It is also important for Australian-born children that this happens because, with higher rates of immunisation, the diseases against which children are immunised are less likely to spread throughout the community. So it is a very important amendment to make sure that children who are adopted from outside Australia are also entitled to this allowance.

These amendments commence on 1 January 2009. After this date, parents and carers with children who meet the immunisation requirements for an 18-month-old will be paid the first maternity immunisation allowance payment of $148.40, which is indexed, when the child is aged between 18 months and 24 months. The second payment of $118.40, which is also indexed, will be available when children have received their vaccination at four years of age, or have an approved exemption, and must be claimed on or before the child’s fifth birthday. The payments will be indexed twice a year. In practice, the second instalment payment will be higher than the first, due to the subsequent indexation. Parents who have received the full immunisation payment for their children prior to implementation of this measure will not be able to claim the payment for immunisation at four years of age.

I can understand the position taken by conscientious objectors when it comes to immunisation, and I respect their right to object, but I must point out some of the very many positives that have resulted in Australia from past and present immunisation programs and just how important it is that immunisation does take place throughout the community in relation to these particular diseases. While the risks associated with the diseases are high, the risks linked with vaccination are low. It is important to remember that vaccines are many, many times safer than the diseases that children are vaccinated against.

Some vaccines have to be adjusted or updated over time. The oral polio vaccine, OPV, has been replaced with an inactivated polio vaccine, IPV, on the basis that the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis from OPV now exceeds the risk of catching naturally occurring polio. This change in comparative risk has come about only because polio has been eliminated from Australia, with no naturally occurring polio cases reported in Australia since 1978. This is a very good thing and is a direct result of previous immunisation programs that have made naturally occurring polio nonexistent since 1978.

Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis, which occurs as a result of receiving oral polio vaccine, is extremely rare, occurring on average once in every 2.4 million doses of vaccine delivered, but can result in significant, ongoing paralysis. Since IPV replaced OPV in the United States in 2000, cases of vaccine-associated paralysis—which previously numbered eight to 10 cases per year in the United States—have been eliminated and the United States has remained polio free. IPV provides protection against all naturally occurring types of this disease worldwide, including here in Australia. Children are vaccinated in Australia against polio at two, four and six months and at four years of age.

Let us have a quick look at some of the other diseases which once had a far greater incidence in this country but, through immunisation, have been made far more rare and no longer impact on our children in the large numbers that they once did. Whooping cough is caused by the bacteria called Bordetella pertussis. This disease is highly infectious and most serious in babies. The disease is spread through droplets in the air and it can develop from windpipe infections into lung infections, known as pertussis pneumonia. Symptoms include coughing and ‘whooping’, which can continue for a few months. Complications of the disease include a lack of oxygen to the brain, leading to brain damage and possibly death.

Pertussis is a vaccine preventable disease. Vaccination recommended for routine childhood immunisation is listed on the National Immunisation Program schedule and funded for children under the Immunise Australia Program. People in high-risk occupations, such as health and childcare workers, are urged under the program to consider receiving a booster against pertussis. In my previous role as the National Secretary of the Health Services Association, we always used to say to our members and all health workers that this was something that they should be very aware of, and we urged them to make sure that they participated in a vaccination program so that they were safer when looking after the sick in our country.

No doubt most members are familiar with tragic stories of Australians, young people in particular, who have died or been left permanently scarred or disabled by meningococcal infections. Meningococcal diseases are caused by a number of different strains of a certain bacteria. Meningococcal diseases include meningitis, septicaemia, pneumonia, arthritis and conjunctivitis. It takes between one to 10 days after infection before symptoms show. Symptoms of meningococcal meningitis include high fever, headache, neck stiffness, nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to light, confusion, irritability and drowsiness. In Australia, meningococcal infections caused by strain C are vaccine preventable in all age groups, including babies and young children. Infections caused by strains A, C, W135 and Y are vaccine preventable in older children and adults. Vaccination recommended for routine childhood immunisation is listed on the National Immunisation Program schedule and funded for children under the Immunise Australia Program.

Diphtheria is another vaccine preventable disease, classed as an acute illness. Toxins produced by a bacteria that causes diphtheria affect the respiratory tract, the nervous system, the adrenal glands and the heart muscle cells. Spread by droplets or direct contact with wounds and materials soiled by infected persons, diphtheria takes two to five days after infection for symptoms to show. The disease mainly affects the respiratory tract but skin can also become infected. The bacteria form a membrane of dead, white blood cells in the upper respiratory tract, causing breathing difficulties. The diphtheria toxin can cause severe nerve and heart damage. Vaccination recommended for routine childhood immunisation is listed on the National Immunisation Program and funded for children under the Immunise Australia Program.

A number of immunisations are required in the first few years of a child’s life to protect the child against the most serious infections of childhood. The immune system in young children does not work as well as the immune system in older children and adults because it is still immature. That is why more doses of vaccine are needed for children. In the first months of life, a baby is protected from most infectious diseases by antibodies from his or her mother, which are transferred to the baby during pregnancy. When these antibodies wear off, the baby is at risk of serious infections and so the first immunisations are given before these antibodies have gone.

Another reason why children get many immunisations is that new vaccines against serious infections continue to be developed. The number of injections is reduced by the use of combined vaccines, where several vaccines are combined into one shot. The common side effects of immunisation are redness and soreness at the site of injections and a mild fever. While these symptoms may concern parents and upset their children at the time, the benefit of the immunisation program is protection from disease. More serious reactions to immunisations are very, very rare.

That is some of the background as to why immunisation is so important in the lives of Australians. Diseases which were once thought to be the normal risks of everyday existence in this country, such as polio and tetanus, are now fully preventable thanks to vaccines and immunisation. The changes made possible through this bill will give parents an incentive to have their four-year-olds given the recommended boosters before they start school and should result in many Australian children having a better overall level of immunisation.

There are other elements of this bill which I will touch on briefly. Schedule 2 of the bill contains amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 that will give effect to the 2008-09 budget measure to cease eligibility for partner service pension for those partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouses and who have not reached pension age. Under current provisions, a non-illness-separated spouse loses eligibility for the partner service pension from the date from which they enter into a marriage-like relationship. These amendments extend circumstances to lose eligibility to 12 months after the date of separation or when the veteran partner enters into a marriage-like relationship. These amendments commence on 1 January 2009.

Further amendments will set the eligibility age at 50 years for partner service pension for the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of the equivalent of or less than the special rate but above the general rate disability pension or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. These amendments would only commence upon royal assent.

The bill also makes minor amendments to the child support legislation, notably to address anomalies in relation to the child support formula reforms that commenced on 1 July 2008. These changes include reflecting changes in care of less than 7.1 per cent in the child support assessment in certain circumstances, allowing the publication of de-identified reasons for decisions in child support cases by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, allowing either parent to apply for a departure from assessments in high-cost care cases, and allowing departure prohibition orders to be enforced for overseas maintenance liabilities.

To briefly recap, this bill makes changes that will, firstly, restructure the maternity immunisation allowance to bring it more closely in line with the National Immunisation Program. The reasons why this needs to be done and why immunisation is so important have already been outlined. The first partner service pension measure in the bill will cease eligibility for those partners who have separated but not divorced from their veteran spouses and who have not reached pension age. Under this measure, eligibility for partner service pensions will cease 12 months after separation or if the veteran enters into a marriage-like relationship. The second partner service pension measure is to set the eligible age of 50 years for partner service pension for the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of less than the special rate but above the general rate of disability pension or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

Australians have the second longest life expectancy, next to Japan, with Australians living an average of 81 years. Immunisation programs have played an important role, though they are not the sole determinant in this. It is vitally important for the future health of the nation, not only in making sure that we live longer but also in terms of the quality of life that Australians live, that immunisation programs are supported and encouraged so that we can have higher rates of immunisation. This will make sure that children are not made vulnerable to the various diseases that in past generations caused so much heartache and loss. It is vitally important that these immunisation programs are supported. It is vitally important that the amendments in this bill are supported so that young Australians, and those who are adopted from overseas and become Australians, are given the maximum encouragement and maximum opportunity to participate in our immunisation programs that bring about a healthier and longer-living citizenship in this country. I commend the bill to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has really amazed me at times, in the 10 months since I have been here, to hear the voices of some on the opposition benches. I wish that some of their constituents could hear what they say at times about those people in same-sex relationships and those people who are living in non-marital relationships. We have heard hysteria at times from those opposite—not from all of them but from some—in relation to family life, as if those on this side of the House do not live in families, do not appreciate the pressures that family life can bring, do not have children, do not pay mortgages, do not love their children, do not love their relatives and do not live in society and the community. It is extraordinary the way that they go on. We heard stuff from the member for Mackellar previously about polygamous relationships, and criticising our side, in relation to so much of our legislation, as if it is antifamily. It is nonsense that our legislation is antifamily or that this government is antifamily.

This particular piece of legislation is about family relationships; it is about veterans issues; it is about helping and encouraging people to take better care of the health of their children. So I speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. It is an omnibus bill. I want to speak on it for two reasons. Firstly, I want to speak on the bill because there is a large veterans community in my electorate of Blair, where RAAF Base Amberley is. It is about to become a superbase. Amberley is a place that people want to be posted to, and they often buy homes in Ipswich and, if they get posted to other places, come back to Ipswich to live after they retire. We have a big veterans community in the Ipswich area and in the Lockyer Valley and the Boonah Shire close by. Secondly, I want to speak on the bill because of my background as a family lawyer. The bill has three main elements: the maternity immunisation allowance instalment and extension of eligibility, the cessation of the partner service pension to some married but separated partners, and changes to the Child Support Scheme in relation to the formula and departures from assessment.

I want to commend the member for Dobell for his longstanding interest and service in the health sector. He has stood up for the rights of working men and women. And he has a deep, abiding interest in their long-term welfare. He spoke very well in relation to the maternity immunisation allowance issue.

Currently, the eligibility for the MIA is contingent upon the child being under two years of age and then the MIA is paid but once. The MIA is a non-income-tested, one-off payment, and it is designed to encourage parents to immunise their children. If parents receive the baby bonus, then the MIA commonly is paid when the child is 19 months old. If parents are not paid the baby bonus, they need to formally claim the MIA on or before the child’s second birthday. It is a fact that, sadly, immunisation rates for Australian children are higher when they are two years of age than when they are going to school. It is probably understandable in a sense: when you have a baby you are really more careful, and you think that children, by the time they go to school, are a little bit more robust. I think we all think that of our children.

This bill contains a budget measure to align the allowance with the National Immunisation Program. The change in this bill will ensure that the MIA is paid in two equal payments for children who meet the 18-month and the four-year immunisation requirements. Further, it will extend the eligibility for the allowance to children adopted from overseas who enter Australia before turning 16 years and who are immunised subsequent to migration to Australia. The change follows the recommendation of the 2005 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into adoption of children from overseas. That committee recommended, at recommendation 10, that:

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

I am pleased that the minister is taking heed of that recommendation and putting that in this bill.

The member for Dobell went through a number of the different diseases which the National Immunisation Program recommends that children should be vaccinated against. There is a need for vaccination for four-year-olds. There is a need for vaccination in relation to whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles, polio and the like. It is important for parents to vaccinate their children. It is something that every dutiful parent should take notice of in the circumstances.

I have had a lot of discussions with the minister on the issue of partner changes in relation to Veterans’ Affairs. The situation is that from 1 January 2009 any spouse of a veteran who has been separated from that veteran for 12 months or more will cease to be eligible for the partner service pension. Eligibility will also cease if the veteran has entered or enters a marriage-like relationship with another person. It is a fact that people separate and move on. This measure does not affect partners who are over age pension age unless the partner enters into a marriage-like relationship or divorce. That is the current policy. The measure will not apply to a spouse who is separated from a veteran simply because of illness. That is a fact for a lot of people who are married to veterans. A spouse of a veteran who has separated because of illness remains a partner of that veteran even if, say, the veteran is in a nursing home. That is the case. They will not be disadvantaged by this measure.

The minister informs me that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is writing to each of those separated spouses who might be affected by this measure to advise of the change and provide assistance in seeking alternative income support arrangements for those who require it. My understanding is also that a special team in the department has been established to ensure individuals have their circumstances properly considered and are fully informed of any options which are available to them in respect of income support. Spouses who lose eligibility for a partner service pension under the measure contained in this bill may be eligible for an income support payment paid by Centrelink. These payments include Newstart allowance, widow allowance and disability support pension. It is interesting to note that the disability support pension is paid at the same rate as the partner service pension. I understand also that special teams have been formed to help in the transition of these arrangements to Centrelink.

It must be noted that, under the age pension situation for a partner of a veteran, it is estimated that there will be around 580 partners of veterans under age pension age. This number includes spouses of veterans who may be assessed as separated due to illness and therefore will not be affected by this measure. Thirty-four per cent of the 580 partners are now in receipt of less than the maximum rate of partner service pension, as they have other income and/or assessable assets. For those people over age pension age, it is important to note that it is estimated that only around 590 separated partners will be over the age pension age, and they will not be affected by this measure on 1 January 2009. The age pension and the partner service pension are paid at the same rate, so these 590 partners will continue to receive their pension paid by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. So you can see that there will be very few people affected in the circumstances—and a lot of alarmism is being preached by those opposite.

The third element of this bill deals with child support reform. There are a series of what have been described as minor changes in relation to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. It is important to think about child support because Australia has been a leading light throughout the world when it comes to child support. It is not commonly known that, at common law, a parent owed no duty to provide financial support for a child that was enforceable by litigation. Statute has long intervened in the circumstances to provide civil liability for financial support of children by parents enforceable by court action. The Family Law Act, at section 66C, establishes a legal duty to maintain a child and creates the legal obligation to pay child maintenance. A court exercising jurisdiction under that act, namely the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court, is constrained by section 66E of the Family Law Act from making a child maintenance order if an application can properly be made for an administrative assessment of child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act.

The principal object of the Child Support (Assessment) Act is to ensure children receive a proper level of financial support from their parents. The assessment act therefore creates and quantifies that liability and the subsequent debt but does not create the debt. It does not determine any question about legal rights or obligations in the circumstances, but it may operate to create future obligations. Though an application under the Child Support (Assessment) Act creates obligations, it is the case that both parents should contribute financially to their children, and they should do so to the extent of their respective abilities, taking into consideration their needs. It is the case that, if a person is unhappy with an administrative assessment of child support, they can apply for a review, or the Child Support Registrar can seek a review of that decision, to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. In each case it is looked at to see all the facts before it, and a full and frank disclosure must be made by all the parties in the circumstances.

The SSAT is a very important legal process. The whole business of making sure that people pay child support is a legal process that can be quite cumbersome and costly for people. An appeal can be made from the SSAT on questions of law by way of an application to the Federal Magistrates Court under section 110B of the registration and collection act. That is why it is important for the SSAT to have the body of precedent that has been created and for there to be nonidentification of parties but authorisation for case law to be developed so people can actually see the kind of relevant decisions in case law precedent which will help them to avoid going to the SSAT in those circumstances. That is what this bill does in one of the aspects of the child support amendment. Child support amendments are important, and we have seen a remarkable unanimity between both sides of politics when it comes to seeking child support amendments. In fact, we have seen a big change from 1 July this year. Those changes built on the recommendation of the 2005 independent Ministerial Task Force on Child Support, which was established as a result of the House of Representatives report Every picture tells a story.

Stage 3 of child support reform came on 1 July this year. As a result of stage 3, there has been an analysis undertaken by the Australian government of the 691,000 cases—so you can see that child support affects a lot of Australians and their families. About 37 per cent of payees and about 51 per cent of payers have had net increases in household income as a result of the reforms. About 49 per cent of the payees and 33 per cent of the payers have had net reductions—that is, they have paid less overall. About 13 per cent of payees and 16 per cent of payers have had no change in their child support or their family tax benefit as a result of the reforms. Most of the people who have received changes of assessment in child support have had an adjustment of sometimes less than $10 a week and sometimes up to about $20 a week.

It is important that the government back up these changes with tough enforcement measures—and they came into operation on 1 July this year—to make sure that parents who have child support obligations pay their full amount of child support and that they do so in a timely way. It is important that we collect more child support because that puts less pressure on the Australian taxpayer, and it is important that parents who have the children fulfil their responsibilities not just financially but in a parental way as well. In my work as a family lawyer it never ceased to amaze me how often people would say that they were paying too much child support when the amount they were paying was far less than the Australian Institute of Family Studies said should be paid to meet the real cost of maintaining children.

The reforms we are talking about here will make changes to calculations of the percentage of care that will reflect agreements that are made by way of a consent order or child support agreement and will reflect the reality of people’s experience. The second part of the child support changes permits the publication of reasons for decisions by the SSAT, and that is extremely important, as I have said. The SSAT is required to provide reasons for its decision to parties seeking reviews and of course to the registrar. The amendments provide that the SSAT will not be prevented from communicating its reasons to authorised persons or from publishing them. That is important. It is also important that people’s privacy be maintained, and this bill takes that into consideration—as well as witnesses, who do not want to be dragged into the process and have their names plastered around for public identification and comment.

The third aspect is an amendment that will permit either parent to apply for a departure order in circumstances where the real cost of caring for children should be taken into consideration. Under section 117(2) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act, if it is just and equitable and otherwise proper, parents can have regard to making applications for what is commonly called a departure order. The high cost of maintaining children was often taken into consideration but only for one of the parties. The child support reforms mean that not just the carer parent but the other parent can have the reality of the care of the children taken into consideration. So that is an important measure in all of the circumstances. It is a just measure.

The final thing that I want to say is that the government is extending the departure prohibition orders to overseas maintenance liabilities. We have entered into foreign treaties, we have signed treaties in relation to overseas child maintenance and the Hague convention on child abduction, but it is important that we in this country fulfil our obligations and enforce child support no matter where it is assessed—in our country or overseas. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I would like to share with the House the real-life impact some of these measures will have on veterans and their families, such as those from my own electorate of Forrest. To begin with I would like to acknowledge the courage, the loyalty and the commitment to our nation that our veterans display while serving in many theatres of war around the world. It was and is these men and women who fought for our nation, our beliefs, our freedoms and our security. We thank and acknowledge these people on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and honour the memory of their fallen mates for their ultimate sacrifice for our country.

The Prime Minister said on Anzac Day this year, ‘There is no higher calling than to wear the uniform of Australia.’ He thanked the veterans and their families for their services to Australia. I could not agree with the Prime Minister more. As a nation, we are indebted to these brave people and their families. Yet here we are in the House of Representatives of Australia with the Labor government proposing to reduce veterans entitlements.

Unless you have been to war, you cannot truly understand the effect fighting in a war has on an individual. The transition from life in a war zone to peacetime life is an immense challenge for many returning service personnel. Issues which arise include post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and suicide, as well as a raft of other emotional and/or mental illnesses—not to mention the impact of physical wounds. Furthermore, returning service men and women must relearn how to live within their family and their community—at times, no mean feat. They have to rediscover their family and try to integrate back into the lives of those they left behind. Not only that—veterans continue to live with their experiences whilst at war. It is no wonder these brave people encounter problems upon their return.

But it goes much further than just the individual. A veteran’s whole family must readjust as well. The family takes the strain of these mental, emotional and physical impacts that weigh on the veteran. Our continuing support for these families is crucial. The Labor government must not turn their back on our veterans and families after all they have done for this country and for us. Certainly those people who fought for our country in uniform should be recognised for the service they provided to this country. So too should their partners be recognised for supporting them, for the time they kept the family together while their husband or wife was actively serving away from Australian shores, and they should continue to be recognised for keeping their relationships together when our defence personnel returned home.

This is often underestimated. Consider the Vietnam vets specifically and what they endured both while they were away and when they came home—they were certainly not always the same person physically, emotionally or mentally as the one who went away. The strain on partners to keep those relationships together is very difficult to quantify, and I do not think it can be quantified. Most partners certainly tried to keep the relationship alive and the family unit together. However, some couples ultimately, after perhaps 30 or 40 years, came to the point where they could not support each other anymore and subsequently parted. Such a move is always hurtful to families and partners who have to start a new life. Some never cope and some never recover. Some hang on to their long relationships, never wanting to completely sever those ties or file for divorce.

The previous government did recognise the commitment and dedication that partners gave to veterans, with the payment of the partner service pension as an entitlement. After all that our veterans and their partners have endured on behalf of Australia as a whole, I am appalled that this government wants to change the eligibility rules for the partner service pension and cut out those very deserving partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouses. Currently, separated partners are eligible for the partner service pension until they divorce or commence a new marriage-like relationship. This is a fair and reasonable policy. But the Labor government’s proposal will cast aside those partners who are now into their middle years and currently do not reside with their veteran spouse for whatever reason—some of which I have outlined earlier. It will simply cut them off within 12 months of this bill becoming legislation.

The Rudd Labor government proposes that, from 1 January 2009, partner service pension eligibility will cease 12 months after the date of separation unless either partner commences a new marriage-like relationship beforehand. Partners who separated from their veteran spouse before 1 January 2008 will lose their partner service pension eligibility from 1 January 2009—three months away.

Many partners are ill equipped to enter the workforce. Many more have not worked outside the home for most of their adult lives, often because of the problems endured by the veteran in the family. They have often spent their lives working in the home, looking after their husband and children, happy to have the service years over, enduring whatever ailments their partner’s tour of duty has created.

This government is out of touch with real people and does not understand or respect partners of veterans who have served our country well. Indeed, these partners have actually saved the government a great deal of money by keeping their family units together for as long as they have, as well as supporting their husbands during a difficult period of their lives. There was no government recognition or assistance in those early years after Vietnam.

The government’s legislation is forecast to save $40.6 million over four years on this measure alone—that is, the government will take $40.6 million from those hands. Additional amendments proposed by the government will further erode veterans entitlements. This government intends to increase the age eligibility for the partner service pension, which was previously 50 years of age, to 58.5 years for women and 60 for men. There is also another proposed amendment that will allow partners to continue to receive the partner service pension from 50 years of age if their veteran partner falls into a new disability category. The government was shamed into this after receiving a backlash from the veteran community—and rightly so. Both these proposed changes to veterans entitlements were announced in the budget, and the government stated that the changes would provide gross savings of $77.8 million over four years. I would challenge this savings figure because I do not believe the government has taken into account the number of affected partners who will move onto other government income support through welfare.

I believe the proposed changes in this bill are too severe, unjust and unfair to married recipients of the partner service pension who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse. I would like to share with the House the plight of one of my constituents in my electorate of Forrest who is in a state of shock, distress and basically depression due to the extreme adverse financial impact these changes will have on her life. She is one of those ‘real people’. My constituent was married to a Vietnam veteran for almost 40 years. For the last four years she has been living apart from her husband. She had been married for just over 12 months when her husband was sent to Vietnam. When he returned, they tried to recapture their life and they looked forward to a long and happy marriage. But this was not to be.

When they married, they married for life and were determined to maintain a happy family for their three children. As her husband became more withdrawn and uncommunicative, their personal relationship suffered. Achieving a happy family home became almost impossible. My constituent was a stay-at-home mum. Her job was running the home and small farm, bringing up children and caring for her husband. When circumstances required, she undertook cleaning and other odd jobs to provide for extras and education for the children. Her veteran husband was eventually diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and, at 50 years of age, was classified a TPI and a service pensioner.

Without the social stimulation provided by employment, her husband became even more isolated. When the children left the family home, life became increasingly difficult for the couple. Their personal relationship deteriorated until there was little or no communication left between them. With the tension of silence too hard to take, they made the decision to live apart. This decision was not made lightly, as family was, and still is, of great importance to both parties. After so many years together, husband and wife now life apart and alone. As a result of having children together, however, they will always have a relationship. In 34 years of marriage, my constituent spent only one year with a husband who was not affected by war service. She has spent those years of her life living and working in difficult circumstances and, in many ways, she has suffered as much as her veteran husband. Her view of the reason for the change in eligibility—that is, ‘to ensure that a person’s income support entitlements are paid based on their own circumstances and not on a relationship that may have ceased many years ago’—is that it is not only appalling but also insulting.

In the four years that my constituent has lived alone, her entitlement has always been based on her own circumstances, and any income earned has been taken into consideration. During her married life as a full-time homemaker, she had very few opportunities to develop a career, and her limited paid employment was in unskilled areas such as cleaning and general farm work. And we must remember that she was living with a veteran with problems. Her lack of self-confidence from years of emotional deprivation makes the thought of being forced into retraining programs through Centrelink quite terrifying for her. My constituent is devastated that, at this time in her life—she is in her mid-fifties—when she has finally found some kind of quiet peace of her own, she will be forced to make a whole new life. After suffering a continual erosion of self-worth and rejection over many years, she cannot even begin to envisage her future.

I am most concerned about how many other women in circumstances like those of my constituent, who have suffered most severely in a relationship with a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, are going to cope with the loss of this entitlement. I would remind those opposite that we are dealing with people’s lives—real people. I believe these proposed changes to eligibility for partners, are unjust and unfair and show no respect for the deserving partners. Their veteran spouses may have gone to war for several years but, in some instances, veterans’ wives and partners have been suffering ever since. My constituent is one of the vulnerable real people affected by this change. I respect the veterans and their wives or husbands. I oppose the changes to the partner service pension for separated but not divorced partners, and I support the amendments moved by the member for Greenway.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 because it is a bill that directly benefits some of our youngest Australians. I think that is particularly important. The member for Dobell gave a great speech on this bill. He has a long and proud history as National Secretary of the Health Services Union and has a great interest in this area. I think he is a real benefit to the House. The member for Blair also gave a great speech; I commend them both. This bill provides for three important changes. The first is to the maternity immunisation allowance, the second is to partner service pensions and the third is to child support. All three directly affect my electorate of Wakefield. Wakefield has young families, a strong and vibrant veteran community and also an extraordinarily large number of both payers and receivers of child support. You can see the very great changes to the structure of society and the structure of families in Wakefield.

One of the great challenges for government in the future will be how it responds to constellation families. We have fewer nuclear families than we once had and, increasingly, we have constellation families where people do not have just one family; they have sometimes two or three. They have biological children and stepchildren, and they have a multitude of relationships. These family relationships do not always fit neatly into government programs. Child support is one of those areas that we are trying desperately to improve, but it does not always fit that well into people’s personal situations. This bill is an attempt to improve that situation and to have some regard to people’s personal circumstances. As I said before, how we respond to those changes will be one of the great challenges of modern government.

These changes reflect a government that is concerned about advancing Australians’ living standards but is also aiming at balancing the books and maintaining budgetary and economic responsibility. We know that you cannot improve people’s lives by funny accounting or by Peronist policies. The opposition want to pretend that we can be all things to all people, that we can just promise everything to every group, that there is a magic pudding out there and that you can take a spoon, dip it in and keep dipping it in just like in Norman Lindsay’s book. My mum used to read The Magic Pudding to me. The member for Fadden is a great believer in the magic pudding; he seems to be for everything. The Howard government had the magic pudding policy. They kept on spending and spending, and the IMF picked up their explosive rate of spending in the last couple of budgets, which fuelled inflation. That is a matter of record and history now. It is obviously costing those on fixed incomes in particular greatly.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Haase interjecting

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are waiting for the Senate to pass our Medicare surcharge tax cut to working Australian families, couples and singles. We are waiting on the other place to pass our budget, and I would just encourage members opposite to do that.

The first of these reforms is the change to the maternity immunisation allowance, the MIA, to bring it in line with our National Immunisation Program. In 2006-07, the maternity immunisation allowance assisted with the immunisation of almost a quarter of a million Australian children at a cost of $56.2 million. That $56.2 million is very well spent. It helps families. It assists people who have young families. It assists those in school, because it prevents diseases from damaging our young people. It represents a significant contribution to 270,000 Australian families. People want a health system that is focused on maintaining health and preventing disease rather than responding to it. Families know that prevention is better than cure. They know that immunisation is far better than being sick, going to hospital or visiting a doctor later on—all of which take extraordinary amounts of time out of a family’s life and are distressing. Immunisation is an essential part of effective healthcare policy. In particular, it is important for parents who are concerned about protecting the health of their children.

In Wakefield, there are almost 10,000 children under the age of six. Obviously we want to make sure that they are inoculated against preventable diseases. The level of immunisation in Wakefield is about 93 per cent, which is a great achievement. It is a high rate and one that we want to improve. There are a lot of young families in the area, so having high immunisation rates is particularly important. The mid-north region includes the lovely town of Clare. It is great wine-growing territory—I know the member for Adelaide has been to Clare and tried the wine on occasion. Clare has some great tourist opportunities. That area has had the biggest increase in early childhood immunisations of any division of general practice in South Australia. So it is great to see that a vibrant country region can lead the way in immunisation in South Australia. It is a record which I am sure other parts of South Australia envy, and it is something that the electorate of Wakefield can be proud of. We would like to improve those results in the future and get even higher rates if we can.

The current flaw in the maternity immunisation allowance is that it is delivered as a lump sum payment. Any sort of payment has an effect on people’s behaviour. As the payment is available without means testing, on or before a child’s second birthday, most parents aim to provide standard immunisations for their child at around 18 months. By providing the lump sum there is an incentive for parents to get those immunisations at the 18-month mark but no incentive, and importantly no reminder, to get the second round of immunisations at age four.

We know that taxation policy and social security policy—anything that involves a payment—alters the community’s behaviour. If we are interested in eliminating this flaw and driving up the immunisation rate for four-year-olds, this bill will assist to do that. We know that immunisation rates for two-year-olds are significantly higher than for school-age children. Ninety-three per cent of children aged two are fully immunised, but that drops to 88 per cent by age six. So it is clear that some families, caught up in work, school and all those pressures that are on families these days, do not follow up with immunisation to the four-year-old mark. If people do not follow up their child’s immunisations, the policy is less effective over time.

With many older children missing out on the second round of immunisations, as recommended in the National Immunisation Program, the prevalence of illnesses like diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles and polio in the Australian community is affected. We want to eliminate those diseases. Polio went through a lot of families of the baby boomer generation. My own aunts and uncles and my grandparents’ family had a spot of it themselves. It was a very distressing disease but one that my generation—generation X—have happily missed.

This bill eliminates this flaw by providing an incentive for parents to secure those recommended immunisations and as a result will increase the proportion of four-year-olds who are fully immunised. Under these measures, from 2009 parents and carers who have children that meet the immunisation requirements for an 18-month-old will be paid the first half of their maternity immunisation allowance payment, currently $118.40 and indexed, when the child is aged between 18 months and 24 months. The second maternity immunisation allowance payment will then be available when the child has received its vaccinations at four years of age and must be claimed on or before the child’s fifth birthday. By changing the method of payment, families still get the benefit but the pattern of payment will help to enforce and change behaviours and make sure that we drive up immunisation rates for that second group of children. Those payments will continue to be indexed twice a year, so in practice the second instalment will be higher than the first, due to subsequent indexation.

This bill does more than just provide incentives for a more effective National Immunisation Program; it also increases support for families with children who are adopted from overseas. Currently some older adopted children are excluded from the program due to their age. Under this bill they will have access to the program within two years of arrival in Australia. With more and more families adopting from overseas this is a very important measure.

This measure reinforces the fundamental purposes of the maternity immunisation allowance—namely, to support the immunisation of all children in Australia, whether they are born in Australia or are newly arrived through adoption. The measure itself is a recommendation of the bipartisan 2005 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into overseas adoption in Australia. It is good to see the work of committees being incorporated into the law of the land. It is nice to know that all those committee meetings that we attend with such vigour, hearing from experts and from those who are most affected by the legislation that we enact, are worth while. It is great to see that their work is incorporated into the law of the land. It makes for better practice in the House of Representatives and ultimately better law.

This bill also provides for changes to the partner service pension, which will require some readjustment in the community. The first change is to cease eligibility for partners of veterans who are separated but not divorced after 12 months of separation or if the veteran enters into another marriage-like relationship. The second measure recognises that a partner of a veteran who is a recipient of less than the special rate but above the general rate disability pension or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act should have a lower eligibility age for the partner service pension. Under these amendments that eligibility will be set at 50 years. These changes will contribute to a responsible budget and responsible measures to ensure that our repatriation system is strong and equitable into the future.

The bill before the House today also makes changes to the child support legislation to address anomalies in relation to the child support formula reforms that commenced this July. As I said before, these changes are important to make sure that people pay their child support, but they also enable changes in people’s circumstances and lifestyle to be reflected in adjustments to their child support assessments. The nature and pattern of people’s families change, as do their proportion of care obligations and their income, so these child support formula reforms are very desirable. Anything we can do to make the system more responsive to people is important.

These are important measures and they fulfil the community’s expectation of what a caring and responsible government does. This bill supports parents in ensuring their children have access to proper preventative health care. We are endeavouring to make our system of supporting veterans more responsible and responsive to their needs. We are also aiming at making the child support mechanisms more responsive to the community’s needs. For these reasons I support the bill before the House.

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

I rise to speak to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Schedule 1 of the bill, the maternity immunisation allowance, clearly encourages parents to immunise their children and especially extends the allowance to cover children adopted overseas. Immunisation is important, and schedule 1 of the bill is clearly supported. Immunisation works to prevent disease, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Immunisation is available against 23 diseases through the National Immunisation Program. Australians can be protected from diseases such as whooping cough, rubella, measles, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and even good old influenza. I am a supporter of immunising our communities. I congratulate the over 88 per cent of families who immunise their children. I know it is hard. I have a three-year-old and a one-year-old, and I take my children to get immunised. I took my poor little boy when he was six months old; his face went red and he let out that little squawk, but I understand how important it is.

Schedule 3 concerns child support. It is quite often said that imitation is the highest form of flattery, and the Rudd government demonstrates this again. Clearly, schedule 3 is supported. But it is schedule 2 that I have a significant problem with. This nation has a contract with its veterans. It is an unwritten contract—it is not spoken loudly in the halls of parliament or elsewhere, but it is a contract nonetheless—that says: ‘You will train, you will be led and you will fight. We will put you in harm’s way. Some of you will pay the ultimate price and will die. Because of that service, because you love country more than self, because you are not afraid to face this country’s adversaries and to fight for the freedom we take for granted, our contract with you is that we will have a range of entitlements that we will preserve.’ That is the contract with veterans.

In my military career and my time serving in operations overseas, if someone did not pull their weight or went back on their word, we said that they were ‘jack’—that they were a ‘jack man’. I stand here today and say to Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, and to the government: you are a government of ‘jack men’—

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Outrageous!

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

because you have stood and looked veterans in the eye and said, ‘We are going to strip your entitlements away.’ That government is ‘jack’ in my language and it is ‘jack’ in the language of our veterans. Last year, the government had the hide, the audacity, the blatant effrontery, to say to the veteran community in its 2007 election policy document, which I can only imagine now is a farcical piece of fairytale trash—and I will quote in case you are a little hard of hearing on that side—on page 5:

Labor understands the impact of rising costs of living and the importance of ensuring that entitlements do not erode in value.

Member for Dawson, are you a little hard of hearing, sir? Do I need to say it again for you?

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bidgood interjecting

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

Your document, put out under the name of your leader, now the Prime Minister, said that entitlements will not erode in value. Today, your idea of ‘not eroding in value’ and that of the rest of the nation are slightly different indeed. Six months after you put out that fairytale and you conned the nation and you promised the veteran community and looked them in the eye, you produce a budget which has resulted in this piece of legislation that is increasing the pension age for partners of veterans from 50 to 58½.

Veterans’ families plan their futures carefully. They take into account this contract that the government has with them, this unspoken agreement that entitlements will be there. Life in the military is hard. Veterans have to move city. They train. They spend extended periods of time away from loved ones. It is expected by veterans and, indeed, their partners that they will be safe in the knowledge that their government will look after them. These measures are in place to demonstrate a small part of our gratitude for those who fought for the freedom that we take for granted. Any measure to take them away is condemning these families, in some small part, to further stress and hardship. I find it appalling that this government would look veterans in the eye through their pre-election policy document and boast about protecting entitlements and, in the same breath, strip them away.

On 14 May, I stood in the House to express my abject disgust with this government for considering policy that would exempt veterans from claiming entitlements. For almost three months now, the government has denied the issues and has finally backflipped on taking away all partner pensions from 50 to 58½. It has changed it now so that the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate, who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—partners of veterans affected by these measures are those where the veteran is in receipt of a general rate disability, extreme disablement, intermediate rate disability or temporary special rate—are provided for. Whilst I welcome the backflip, I am still appalled that the government has not moved to change the other $113 million it is ripping out by cancelling the partner pension if a partner separates from a veteran within 12 months.

I have spoken in this place before about the important role of the partners of service men and women. They are left to hold the family fabric together, sometimes for great periods of time—for World War II veterans, in many cases, it was up to five years. For anyone to look a veteran or their partner in the eye and take away their rights is abhorrent. The families and partners of service men and women have made enormous sacrifices for this country. Families are required to move constantly around the nation. Service men and women are constantly sent overseas. Veterans often come back with a range of disorders, both physical and mental. Punishing veterans and their families by removing the pension of the spouse or partner of a veteran after they have separated for 12 months to save $113 million is woeful. It is the act of a ‘jack man’. It is the act of someone who looks you in the eye and says, ‘I will be there,’ but you know damn well that, when the bullets start firing, they will be nowhere to be seen.

This government is running on a two-year surplus of $40 billion, thanks to the outstanding work of the member for Higgins and the previous Howard government. This government should be thankful for the previous government’s fiscally responsible management. The previous government worked tirelessly to put Australia in good economic standing. This government seems to think that the opportunistic seizing of veterans entitlements equates to not eroding the value of veterans entitlements. I think veterans would rather this government looked them in the eye and said, ‘Thank you very much for your service; we are going to preserve your entitlements—all those things that you knew would be there when you served and sacrificed for your nation.’ I would rather the government just said, ‘Thank you for preserving the freedom that I live under each day.’ I would rather this government said to the partners and families of veterans, ‘Thank you for allowing your husbands, your wives, your sons and your daughters to go and serve and fight in our name to protect our freedoms.’

I would rather the government actually honoured their election commitments. Could you imagine that? I would rather they honoured their election commitment which said, ‘Labor understands the impact of rising costs of living and the importance of ensuring that entitlements do not erode in value.’ I would rather the government just did the right thing. But, no, they have not. After looking veterans in the eye, they have moved to punitive measures to take away entitlements.

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs further promised to convene a council. The purpose of the council was to ‘give Australia’s veterans and ex-service organisations a voice at the highest level of government and a greater say with decision makers’. For the last 10 months, while this council has not existed, I have heard the pleas of veterans and their families—and that has not been through a council. Clearly, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has other things to do—for example, calling the coalition’s move to increase the base pension by $30 a week ‘a stunt’. Obviously that is far more important than setting up a council—which he promised to do—to more clearly hear the views of veterans. I can only assume that the reason that this minister has not gone forth and set up this council, as he promised to do, is that his level of concern is perhaps not as high as he verbals in the House—but, then again, a mere six months after they broke their election promise so flagrantly and so egregiously, it is no wonder.

The veteran community have been screaming for assistance, but clearly their pleas are falling on deaf ears—and they can only fall on deaf ears if the minister and the government are not listening. But, then again, if they cannot even keep a simple election promise within six months, I suppose listening would not help anyway. If veterans cannot express their concerns and needs directly to their member of parliament or the minister then there is more wrong with this government than their pleas falling on deaf ears.

The Rudd Labor government went to the election giving veterans and their families a misguided impression of where they stood on veterans entitlements. Veterans have been duped by this government. They have been given the impression that they will not be worse off under this government—yet, clearly, they are now $113 million worse off. There is no way for your hollow men to spin that. The budget figures are patently clear. They are $113 million worse off.

What do you say to a partner of a veteran who has come back with a range of disorders and whose marriage cannot continue to work because of a range of issues but who has been with the veteran for 20 or 25 years, caring for him? What do you say to a partner who, every day, goes and meets with her previous husband, caring for him and taking care of his needs, but cannot live in the same house and they are now separated? Suddenly, after 12 months, you are going to rip away the pension from that partner. You are going to look that partner in the eye and say, ‘I know you care daily for the needs of the veteran and I know you have been together for so long and that, due to a range of post-traumatic disorders and other conditions, you cannot continue to live together and you are separated, but we are going to take your pension away.’ Are you kidding me? Have the hollow men infected the front bench so much that your empathy and degree of understanding of what is right and what is wrong have become shallower as a consequence? Every veteran in this great country of ours who voted for this government has an absolute right to feel a great deal of misapprehension, to feel like they have been dudded.

The coalition has always supported the veteran community and strongly believes that the veteran community should be exempt from a range of budgetary cuts. We have a contract with our veterans that says, ‘We put you in harm’s way and we will preserve your entitlements.’ The sacrifices that veterans have made have not lessened over time. What they have done on the battlefield and the operational fronts across the theatres of war has not lessened over time. The sacrifices that partners have made on behalf of their veteran spouses have not lessened over time. What partners of veterans have done since their veteran partner came home has not lessened over time. The post-traumatic stress disorders and other illnesses that our veterans suffer have not lessened over time. The community’s high regard for our veterans has not lessened. The great resolve of the community has not lessened.

But, clearly, the way this government views veterans has lessened. The government’s view of this unwritten contract that ‘if you go in harm’s way, we’ll take care of you’ has lessened. Clearly, this government’s view of the sacrifice that veterans have made overseas and the value of that to the freedom that we hold has lessened, and that is sad. That is a great tragedy for this House to face. The saddest part of all this is that Labor is not only eroding the value of veterans entitlements with the legislative changes I have spoken about but also eroding the value of our veterans’ commitment to this country. Veterans would say: ‘You promised that you would not erode the value of veterans entitlements. That was your promise to the veteran community, and within six months your budget is ripping $113 million out of the veteran community.’ In the language of the military, that is a ‘jack act’. You are simply a bunch of ‘jack men’ and should stand condemned.

Debate interrupted.