Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. What action has the government taken to assist those in need in Australia’s veterans community and have alternative positions been put forward on this important issue?

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

I thank the member for Ballarat for her question and for her longstanding interest in matters to do with veterans, particularly on issues around the Ballarat POW memorial but also on Long Tan medallic recognitions amongst a range of other issues. The government’s package produces an outcome for over 326,000 veterans affairs beneficiaries with respect to the payment of $1,400 to singles and $2,100 to couples. This is well deserved and clearly, in the circumstances we face in the current economic situation, something that is much needed. It is something that I think shows that this government has recognised that there is a need to act and so has done so. It is also, if you like, as the Minister for Ageing said earlier, a down payment on a further, more comprehensive approach to dealing with the issues of the income of pensioners into the future, and we await the outcome of the Harmer review and action from government at that time.

I am also asked whether there are alternative positions with respect to this, and I am reminded of the fact that the opposition has had positions with respect to the needs of pensioners, particularly the needs of veterans, in the last several months. The House would recall that the member for Bradfield, the then opposition leader, back around 9 September, was of the view that what was needed was an immediate $30 increase for single age pensioners, but he made a point of stipulating quite clearly that everyone else was excluded. This was rightly pointed out at the time as something which excluded disability pensioners, which excluded veterans, which excluded a whole range of people who in fact had a real need.

Subsequently we had a change of opposition leader and we had a change of position. Once again, we would recall that the member for Wentworth, in his interview with Laurie Oakes, was asked what in fact his position was with respect to the $30 payment. Suddenly it was also to cover single age service pensioners. And so it went on. Of course what we discovered at that time was that there had been a late change made to the motion in the Senate to include veterans. The opposition maintained that that covered somewhere in the region of 70,000 single service pensioners—but of course that showed once again that they did not actually understand what they were doing. When you go to the question of single service pensioners, it actually includes a large percentage of partners—partners who in fact are not veterans under any legislation that we operate under, partners who in fact would have been excluded under the very definitions that they had used. So they talked about 70,000 being covered; it was probably closer to somewhere around 40,000.

What the opposition’s position at that time was really about was probably best summed up in an interview that the shadow minister for finance, the member for North Sydney, did with Steve Price on 24 September:

JOE HOCKEY: Okay, so, what—you’re saying we shouldn’t be a voice for pensioners?

PRICE: Happy for you to be a voice for pensioners.

HOCKEY: Well, that’s what we are.

PRICE: It would’ve been better if you had been a voice last year when you had been in office.

HOCKEY: Okay, well, you’re making that political point. I say to you we are not going to because—

PRICE: It’s a factual point, it’s not a political point.

Steve Price went on to say:

I’m happy for you to fight for them but it would have been better if you had fought for them when you were actually able to do something.

We on this side of the House know that you did not, and you on that side of the House know that you did not also. You pulled a stunt, and we said what the stunt was. What these changes that we have announced do is cover a lot more than what you did with your stunt. For example, some 105,000—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In your protection, I have got to insist that the minister cease blaming you for everything that they did not do a month ago anyway.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will direct his remarks through the chair.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise. There are many things I have accused you of over the years and it is very unfair of me to actually put you in for this one.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, well don’t air them publicly either!

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

I certainly won’t! What I will say, Mr Speaker, is that the proposal by the opposition excluded, but we have included, over 105,000 war widows—people who have lost their partners in the service of this country. It also includes some 90,000-plus partner service pensioners, who are the partners of those who have served our country. It also includes some 70,000-plus married service pensioners.

The fact of the matter is that the proposal that the opposition had—and there were many that they had—did not deal with the real issue here. What the government has done is a very good first step in dealing with the issues around the question of pensioner incomes into the future.