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

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

I want to make a couple of points about the debate that occurred in the Senate and some of the issues that have been raised about these Senate amendments and the partner service pension changes that form part of this legislation. In the debate in the Senate around these changes there were a number of concerns expressed by different senators from the opposition about the government’s intention as a result of these changes, and I would like to address some of those concerns. It has been suggested that this is an example of the government moving veterans entitlements to a situation more akin to the status of welfare in the welfare system. That is just not accurate. It has also been suggested that this is about the civilianisation of benefits. That is also not accurate. The fact is that these measures relate only to the former partners of veterans. It is not about the civilianisation of veterans benefits. It is about dealing with the circumstances of those who were partners of veterans but who, because of a breakdown in the relationship, are no longer in that situation.

There are a couple of points with respect to that. There have been points made by Senator Scullion around the fact that the opposition is very concerned about the impact of this on partners of veterans. Senator Scullion and the opposition have taken this view:

These are people for whom we have had a special measure because they have cared for a veteran … We acknowledge the fact that the partner is so important to the continued wellbeing of the veteran that we should treat them differently to welfare recipients.

In normal circumstances I would agree with Senator Scullion on that point, but I think we also have to be consistent with respect to this issue. This particular legislation and the changes thereto deal with the circumstances of those former partners of veterans who are still technically legally married.

If you like, there are three groups of former partners of veterans who you can look at and say that they have suffered often in dealing with the circumstances of living with veterans over a significant period of time. There are those such as this legislation deals with, people who in fact are still technically married but whose relationship may have ended quite some time ago—in some cases five, 10 or more years ago. There are those who have been divorced from the veteran and there are those who were in de facto relationships but whose relationships have also ended. De factos, particularly with the Vietnam generation and beyond, have often been in de facto relationships for many years. The circumstances under the current system are that, at the end of a de facto relationship, access to the partner service pension stops immediately. With respect to the situation of a former partner of a veteran where a divorce has occurred, that has been considered as the end of the relationship, and therefore access to partner service pension has ceased immediately upon the implementation of that divorce. Then there is this group.

If the opposition were being consistent and were basically saying, ‘We want to look after all veterans’ former partners who have done the hard yards dealing with people who are in a bad way and have had long-term problems,’ they would consistently have argued that we should be doing similar things for the divorced partners of veterans or those who were de factos. They have not. Under their government, if you were a de facto and your relationship ended, your access to the partner service pension ended immediately. If you were the former wife of a partner and were divorced, you lost it immediately. If they were consistent about their concerns in this area, they would be arguing for a similar situation for those groups, who were disadvantaged under the system that they were in charge of over the last decade. They did not and they have not. The fact of the matter is that that shows the basic inconsistency of their position.

A number of senators raised concerns about the vulnerability of women in certain circumstances, and we agree that that is a concern. That is one of the reasons why we have moved an amendment which takes into account the circumstances of those with psychiatric issues and why we have made it very clear that we will be looking compassionately at the operation of the illness separation clause, which will be there as part of the system to deal with the circumstances of those who have ongoing issues. We are confident that that can work quite effectively.

The amendments that we have before us came about as a result of several things. They came about as a result of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry into these issues and concerns raised through that process. (Extension of time granted) They also came to our attention as a result of concerns raised by the Partners of Veterans Association of Australia and the RSL. I want to thank them for their constructive contribution with respect to considering these issues. I am not for one minute suggesting that these organisations have endorsed what the government has done—far from it—but they have certainly provided some constructive feedback which has allowed us to consider the question of how we might deal with the sorts of issues that have been raised. I also want to say that members of caucus raised concerns with me about the operation of this system, arguing that what we should be looking at is how we can better make it clear to those who will be impacted by it what their rights and responsibilities are and how we might be able to deal with their circumstances in a more compassionate manner. I was confident, and remain confident, that under the existing definitions with illness separation there would have been scope to deal with these issues, but I am also pleased to be able to take into account those concerns and also the concerns of some of the minor parties in the Senate with respect to these amendments.

The fact of the matter is that this is a difficult measure for some of the people who are affected. Some 580 people are expected to be impacted by its introduction, and there will be an ongoing small group impacted each year as separations occur. But these people have been written to, and only some 120 have contacted the department’s hotline about how they see this impacting on their circumstances. We have seen a number of people who have actually reconciled and a number of people who have notified that they have now divorced, so these circumstances do not impact on them directly now.

Another issue which was raised by one of the members of the opposition, Senator Boyce, was that many of these people, if they are talking about PTSD and other related issues, will not be in a situation where their condition has been diagnosed. The fact is that some 500 of the 580 are already in receipt of a level of disability pension. It may only be 10 per cent or it may well be more—it many cases it would be more—but the bottom line is that all of those 500-plus are in contact with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs on a regular basis. Overwhelmingly, these people either are over the age of 60—and therefore are qualified for a service pension and in a situation where their war-caused disabilities have had, often, some 40 years to manifest themselves—or have already been accredited with pensions and TPI support on the basis of accredited and recognised disabilities, so that these amendments will assist with the proper consideration of their circumstances.

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

Can I say on behalf of the coalition that we welcome the Senate amendments to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. They certainly go a long way towards responding to the concerns of the Partners of Veterans Association and the RSL. We as the coalition do, however, feel that there is still a group of people that will, as a consequence of this bill, lose some of their entitlements and be shifted onto welfare, and that is of concern to us. I want to note that during the Senate debate last night we did move a further amendment asking for entitlements to be retained and fully restored to what was previously the case. I want to note that the government did not support the amendment. But, certainly, it is heartening to see the government responding to not only the concerns of the services associations but also the coalition’s call for some of these changes to be made. It is unfortunate that the changes are not a complete restoration of the entitlements, but it is important to note that they are a definite improvement. So we will be supporting the bill and the amendments as moved.

Question agreed to.