Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Supporting Australian veterans is vital. It is something I am passionate about. I have many veterans in my community and to me, representing Australia’s only garrison city of Townsville, it is particularly important. Many of the soldiers who pass through Townsville are ultimately Australia’s veterans. With now up to 40,000 soldiers having been deployed over the last several years in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Timor and the Solomons, the numbers of veterans are significantly increasing.

The coalition has given its support to this particular bill, the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009, and certainly it has my support. The bill makes three changes to current measures relating to veterans pensions payments, access to the Defence Service Home Insurance Scheme and to dependants’ pensions.

The first change enables Veterans’ Affairs pensions and allowances to be paid into overseas bank accounts. Under the current provisions, anyone who lives outside Australia and receives a pension or payment under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act must have an Australian bank account. These payments were only able to be made into a bank or financial institution account in Australia. This measure in this bill is a sensible measure in that it allows payments to be made to an overseas bank account. It moves with the times. It recognises where we are these days and how we operate in the world. It will reduce the financial burdens for veterans who live overseas and will provide greater support and flexibility for them, so it has my support. It will certainly bring the payment of veterans affairs pensions into line with other Commonwealth payments.

The bill also extends the eligibility for the Defence Service Home Insurance Scheme. This measure will now allow members of the ADF who are entitled to receive assistance under the new Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme to access building and contents insurance. I believe that about 7,500 Australian Defence Force and reserve members will be able to gain access to the insurance scheme. That is a good outcome and it supports our Defence families. This measure will support the ADF. It is very important. It will assist particularly with retention of Defence Force personnel by providing them with even greater support.

The final change in this bill is to cease payment of a majority of dependants’ pensions. Previously, dependants of a veteran who were receiving a disability pension for incapacity were, in some situations, also eligible for a pension. The maximum payment has been $8.42 per fortnight for a partner or widow and $2.86 per fortnight for children. The minimum payments are as low as 84c for partners and 29c for children per fortnight. These pensions have not increased in many years, and there have been no new grants since 1985.

Under the measures in this bill, the dependant pensions will cease and those currently receiving such pensions will be given a lump sum equal to three years of the payments. The dependants pensions will cease on 22 September 2009 and the lump sum payment will be made on 24 September 2009. That payment will be exempt from income tax. Any existing war widow or war widower and orphan pensions are not affected by this change and their payments will continue. As the payment level for dependant pensions has been so low, a lump sum payment in September this year may be more beneficial to many families—I believe it will be.

The coalition supports these measures; however, it is important that the Rudd government clarify several issues relating to the dependants pension. It must be made clear how many people will be affected by the payments ceasing. These people must be told by the government whether those currently receiving a dependants pension will receive another form of compensation after the three-year period of the lump sum ends. That is important to the veterans community, and they will be looking for that explanation from the Rudd government.

We have seen in recent months that the Rudd government has been engaged in reckless spending. This is having a significant impact on veterans. The Labor government had made very few announcements for veterans. They promised reviews, but two very important reviews have been given a lengthy two-year time frame for completion. The two which have been delayed are the review into the cost of pharmaceuticals for war-caused conditions and the review of the operation of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The member for Paterson very clearly articulated this in his contribution in relation to this debate. Two other important reviews have been undertaken—the Clarke review and the military super review—but no announcements by the government have been made for either, and we certainly need that information to come forward. The veterans communities are very eagerly looking forward to that, and I think that they are starting to realise that they have been let down by commitments made by the Rudd government in the run-up to the last election.

It is very interesting. I was having a look at the promises broken by the current government yesterday, and it is quite extraordinary to see the number of very important and significant promises and expectations that were given to the community at the time of the last election that have been either ruled out or, in fact, forgotten about.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am filibustering, yes. It is very disappointing to the electorate, and unfortunately I think that the community will mark the government down for misleading the electorate at the time of the last election. Labor said they would deliver for the veteran community through reviews. With four crucial reviews still outstanding, it is clear that they have not delivered.

The Dunt report examined mental health issues in the Defence Force, and the report has not delivered major outcomes and programs for veterans. In response to issues raised in the study into suicide in the ex-service community, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs announced $9.5 million of funding over four years, but for such a serious issue this is a small amount. The Rudd government needs to show a real commitment to delivering outcomes and programs for veterans and former serving members of the Australian Defence Force.

I support this particular piece of legislation. The changes provide—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, no! Give me the EM or something.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the honourable member for Lindsay should—

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Herbert.

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

For Herbert. He should continue his contribution.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we have no speaker to continue. I certainly support this legislation, but the Rudd government cannot stop here. Issues which concern veterans must be considered and acted upon by the government.

Might I say, in relation to representing the veterans community in Townsville, that I want to pay a tribute to Rod McLeod and his group at the Townsville RSL. Rod is the president; he has been president now for a few years. The RSL just goes from strength to strength in supporting our community. The facility that we have on Charters Towers Road in Townsville is a magnificent facility. It is used by many veterans and, indeed, the wider community. It is a focus for our community. It is a place where the community can, in fact, get together and discuss military and veterans’ issues but also address wider issues. That particular organisation needs to be commended for the terrific work that it does.

When the minister made his second reading speech on this particular bill, I note that he noted that this legislation further improves the operation of Australia’s repatriation system. He says it is in line with the government’s election commitment, but I have indicated in this contribution that there are several very significant matters that are outstanding as far as the veterans in this country are concerned. In introducing these two budget measures to assist veterans, the minister claims—and I believe he is right—that veterans, members and their dependants will have their access to and the effectiveness of their repatriation pension system improved.

There is a third measure, of course, that will assist members in relation to veterans and defence communities, and this is in relation to the insurance matters. Veterans will have been unsettled by the move to cease these—

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

The honourable member for Herbert should continue to proceed manfully. I thank, on behalf of the chamber, the member for Herbert for assisting the House in its proceedings as we await the next speaker on this bill.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Herbert is considering drawing the chair’s attention to the state of the House if something does not happen shortly! Claressa, you might have to come up and speak if that is okay! We have very good clerks in this place.

In relation to the veterans’ concerns about the small payments being replaced by lump sums, yes, there has been some concern in the veterans’ community about that. That has been expressed but I do not think the veterans community needs to be concerned about that. I think that what we really need to be looking at is what will replace the lump sum payment in due course. That is something we need to hear from the government about and something that we need to be mindful of. Certainly, the veterans community will be looking for that.

The Defence Services Homes Insurance Scheme—this is for people eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008—currently provides home insurance to eligible Australian veterans and members, peacekeepers, widows and widowers. This measure will extend eligibility for home insurance to those serving and former members and reservists eligible under the Home Ownership Assistance Scheme introduced in 2008. The extension will provide eligible persons access to cost-effective insurance designed specifically for the service and ex-service community. I note that included peacekeepers. The Australian Defence Force is not only a force of war fighters. It is a force of peacekeepers, of humanitarians and of people involved in training and regional assistance. They do a wonderful job for our country, in our name, for those less fortunate than us.

Last night I was privileged to be with senior officers of the Australian Defence Force. They told me that in Afghanistan, for example, it was not so long ago when no young female was allowed to go to school. They were kept illiterate. Could you imagine a policy like that in Australia—that females should be kept illiterate? I think that we all understand how out-of-date that kind of policy is. I was recently in Pakistan, where it pains me to have to say that the only thing lower than a dog is a woman. How could that be? But the point that we were discussing last night is that there are now some 5 million young women going to school in Afghanistan. What a great outcome, and part of that is being delivered through the ISAF contribution and also through the will and commitment of our mentoring task force on operations in Afghanistan. We can thank the men and women of the Australian Defence Force for that particular contribution.

I would also like to inform the House that there was a discussion about our Bushmasters that we use in Afghanistan. The Bushmasters are just tremendously capable vehicles, making sure that we can operate safely with our troops. When their V-shaped hull hits an improvised explosive device the blast is shot off to the sides. The front wheels of the vehicle can be blown 100 metres on either side of the vehicle but the people inside are kept relatively safe, and that is a tribute to our Australian designers in providing a mobility vehicle for the ADF that keeps our troops safe. I say thank you to the people of Thales in Bendigo for what they do and thank you, too, to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. We can guarantee that both sides of the parliament will do what we can to look after the veterans of our country now and in the future.

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

There has been some confusion in the list, but I notify the Labor speaker that I will not necessarily take up the full 20 minutes.

This bill gives effect to three Veterans’ Affairs portfolio budget measures: to provide the payments for veterans’ affairs pensioners’ allowances into overseas bank accounts, to extend the eligibility for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to persons eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 and to cease payment of the majority of dependents pensions. The issues there are fairly clear-cut and give me the opportunity, nevertheless, to discuss some of the issues relevant to veterans affairs and its importance in this parliament.

I had the privilege of being a shadow minister for veterans’ affairs and writing the policy that the Howard government implemented over time. There are many issues that were outstanding at that time which we consequently addressed. Some of these related even to the provision of medals, where there were some very peculiar views. I do not blame the previous government—they had an inquiry into it—but the decision makers were the Defence establishment, who took a very conservative view of the rights of people to be recognised for their service, more particularly overseas. We were still operating under a system where there was no service medal available for soldiers who had been in areas of danger unless they had been there for six months. Some, of course, unfortunately, did not survive six months; they were in a place of danger from the date of their arrival. I give that only as an example of my long interest in these measures.

Furthermore, I note that this morning another measure was introduced which purported to give veterans a $30 increase in their pension. Of course, that is to be criticised simply because it is not $30; it is $30 less $20 because the $30 subsumes the annual amenities allowance arrangements, which were about $1,000, and therefore represented $20 a week. But we will get an opportunity to make these points at a later date.

The minister also drew it to the attention of the House that deposits to bank accounts will be made, and I believe that has some merit for people. He made the point that currently Veterans’ Affairs beneficiaries who live permanently overseas must have their Veterans’ Affairs payments paid into an Australian bank account, often incurring relatively high bank fees when transferring money internationally. In comparison, most other Commonwealth beneficiaries who live in overseas countries with reliable banking systems can receive their pension directly in an overseas bank account. In 2008 the Prime Minister made a commitment to review this. This of course is the result of that review, and the coalition supports that arrangement. It will make some difference.

It also highlights the circumstances of veterans from overseas who live in Australia, who in the case of British veterans do not necessarily get increases to their pension on the same basis as they would if they had remained in the United Kingdom. There is a freezing of those pensions, and I think that is very bad for them. They suffer from the fact that exchange rates can be either beneficial or very negative. These issues have been debated between the United Kingdom and Australia around these sorts of benefits for decades and nobody has yet been able to convince the United Kingdom that pension increases made available to their citizens there should be available to eligible pension holders here in Australia. The changes made by part 1 of schedule 1 will enable the Repatriation Commission to make arrangements for the payment of pensions, allowances or other pecuniary benefits payable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or the MRCA into an account with a bank or similar financial institution that is outside Australia. That is to be applauded.

The issue of pensioner benefits, in my mind, also suffers—because it is lumped in with the age pension and other matters in many respects—from a wider issue. That issue is that the consumer price index is still utilised as part of the adjustment program. I specifically wanted to take part in this particular debate to make the point that, across the board, if that process is to be maintained, we virtually need what I might call a ‘retiree CPI’. The CPI as we know it takes account of a multitude of price increases, many of which are not applicable to pensioners. There have been adjustments to the effect of home mortgage interest, but pensioners typically do not have mortgages; they certainly seek to avoid them. But, on the other hand, they have deposits, and, as such, a decline in interest rates is not beneficial to them. They suffer badly from the decline in interest rates or the collapse of the stock exchange as many rely on the escalation of share values to finance their retirement.

I believe that government—and this parliament, more particularly—should look closely at this. Maybe it should be the responsibility of one of our standing committees, appropriately associated, to look at what a retiree’s index is. It varies in many respects and as such should be considered in this place so that those expenditures that mostly affect people who are in retirement can be better accounted for. I do not think that the dual assessment process has been an improvement. I do not think the process of using a percentage of male total weekly earnings, MTWE, has improved circumstances because it has kept beneficiaries of these entitlements somewhere in line with what is happening, but there are still other aspects to it—most notably in terms of the retiree’s own residence. It is often not understood that a family with children will have a largish residence somewhere, and in recent times that has appreciated in value. But as the children have left and they are no longer dependent on the family home, there is a good reason for pensioners to scale down the size of their house and possibly achieve a cash financial gain in the process.

The reality, unfortunately, is that there are, particularly, the state governments’ various stamp duties and other charges involved—and, of course, when you sell the premises, you typically use an agent and there are significant commissions to be paid. At the end of it all the family sits down and they realise have got premises that are far too large. If they have some disabilities, it may be very difficult to look after large gardens and all of those sorts of things. But they are locked into it due to the fact that they can actually incur a negative outcome in scaling down to an apartment or something like that. When I say ‘scaling down’, I mean scaling down in size. They put the property on the market. It is not new. It nevertheless probably has quite a good value. The commission for the sale reduces that value, and then, when they go to buy the alternative property, the state governments rip them off for a very substantial amount of money—and with figures that have never been properly indexed. When they add all of that up, they find that they cannot afford the new premises. They certainly do not want to incur a debt, so they stay with a property that is far too big and which creates all sorts of difficulties for them physically. They typically find it very difficult. I have had representations over time on that very matter.

Those were the issues I wanted to take the opportunity to deal with today. The legislation otherwise makes for sensible measures and it has my support. I thank the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. The measures introduced by this bill will improve the arrangements of veterans currently operating in Australia. Members of the nation’s service and ex-service communities will receive substantial benefits from these measures. The bill will deliver greater simplicity and greater levels of support in three important areas. The first of these provisions will extend the eligibility criteria for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. This will allow a greater number of serving Defence Force members and ex-service people to get access to cost-effective home insurance. The second provision provides a far more convenient and cost-effective way to pay pensions and allowances into the bank accounts of defence personnel living overseas. The third set of amendments will cease payments from the old and outdated dependants pension scheme—a scheme that has outlived its usefulness to members.

Before I speak about the details of the reforms before the House, I wish to say that many veterans and their families living on the Central Coast of New South Wales will welcome the measures laid out in this bill. The Central Coast, where my electorate of Robertson is situated, has long been a favoured retirement destination for people from Sydney. This was especially the case in the decades following World War II. As a result, the electorate of Robertson today is home to a very large population of veterans, their families and their dependants. In fact, in April 2009 the Gosford City local government area, which is almost contiguous with the area of my federal electorate, was home to 5,282 Department of Veterans’ Affairs pensioners and cardholders. This is by far the highest veteran population of any local government area in New South Wales. The number is exceeded only by four local government areas in South-East Queensland, making Gosford City the fifth-largest concentration of veterans in Australia. As at April 2009, there were 4,545 people in Robertson receiving a Department of Veterans’ Affairs pension or allowance or holding a DVA treatment or pharmaceutical card. This group includes nearly 1,500 disability pensioners and more than 1,400 war widows. They have an average age of just under 80 years. It is clear from these statistics that reforms to the way veterans’ entitlements are assessed and delivered have a direct and important impact on many thousands of my constituents.

There are 20 separate veterans associations represented in my electorate. These include a wide range of DVA benefit recipients, including the War Widows Guild, several RSL sub-branches, the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association, the ex-POW welfare associations and two ex-servicewomen’s associations, just to name a few. I have the great honour of being a patron to the local branches of both the National Servicemen’s Association, the ‘nashos’, and the Vietnam Veterans Association. I am also an honorary member of the Gosford branch of the World War II Veterans Association. I have worked very closely with all these associations to ensure their concerns are brought to the attention of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and I have to say that, in turn, they have been extremely responsive. Rick Johnson from the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association is a Central Coast local and a tireless campaigner for his members. Rick has had many dealings with my office and we have assisted to the best of our ability in his struggle to better the lives of Australia’s nuclear veterans.

This year, we assisted Richard Gray from the Vietnam Veterans Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Association with funding for a memorial that was unveiled on the waterfront at Ettalong Beach. Another grant was secured for the Malaya and Borneo Veterans Association to erect a memorial at Woy Woy Memorial Park. One of my greatest pleasures throughout this year was hosting the presentation ceremony for the Australian defence medals at the Gosford RSL club. This new honour for past and serving Defence Force men and women has proved a great success over the past two years. It is an opportunity for the people of Robertson to recognise and reward those in our community who have given so much to make this country a better place.

The attendance at Anzac Day ceremonies across the Central Coast has been on the increase over the past few years as well. It seems that the people of Australia are now understanding and embracing fully the contribution that serving and ex-service men and women have made to this nation. In March this year, I also had the great pleasure of participating in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program in East Timor. I spent five days in uniform in East Timor and went on foot patrol at night with ADF members of the International Stabilisation Force. An ADF recruit from the Central Coast was part of my section, which was very interesting for me. I was also lucky enough to fly on a reconnaissance mission in a Black Hawk helicopter, which was pretty exciting—even for me, used to the ups and downs of parliamentary life. Another memorable experience was visiting and talking with village leaders and local policemen in remote settlements. This visit was a great way for me to familiarise myself with the conditions our soldiers experience on the ground, including the difficulties and hardships they undergo on a daily basis in the field.

The trip was also important because it was a strong demonstration of support from the federal parliament for our troops serving abroad. I can say from my experience in East Timor that they are doing a terrific job in very difficult circumstances. The service men and women I spent time with will be the veterans of tomorrow. That is why I am pleased today to be speaking in support of this bill. Even today, our currently serving defence personnel will gain some significant benefits from the measures being brought forward in this legislation.

The bill before the House introduces new arrangements in three main areas, as I have said. Firstly, the eligibility criteria for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme will be extended. This will allow a greater number of serving Defence Force members and ex-service men and women to take out cost-effective home insurance. Under current laws, veterans, currently serving members, peacekeepers, widows and widowers can obtain building insurance through the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. This scheme provides insurance for their home, right of residence in a retirement village, land, building materials, home improvements and home contents. There are currently 80,000 policyholders in this scheme, but numbers are reducing by about four per cent per year. To improve the scheme’s long-term viability, a 2007 review recommended that the scheme be extended and its range of products expanded. In response to this review, the Department of Defence created a new home loan subsidy scheme called the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, which began operation on 1 July 2008.

Under the new measures in the bill, members of this scheme will be eligible for defence service homes insurance. This will mean greater access for many Australians to a home insurance scheme that has been designed specifically for the defence service and ex-service community. It offers discounted insurance products to eligible persons. It is estimated that approximately 7½ thousand ADF and Reserve members will be eligible to take out this cost-effective insurance option. The home loan subsidy scheme was initially introduced as one of the measures designed to improve the recruitment and retention of ADF personnel. Achieving this goal will be made easier by the extension to these personnel of a competitive home insurance scheme as well. This package, which now includes subsidised home insurance in addition to the existing subsidised home loan, will bring benefits to both serving and ex-service personnel. It will also help to ensure the long-term viability of the scheme itself.

The second area of reform the bill addresses is the arrangements for paying pensions and allowances into the bank accounts of defence personnel living overseas. A more convenient scheme in this area will greatly assist veterans and other DVA income support pension recipients. These include war widows and widowers, service pensioners and disability pensioners who live permanently overseas. Currently these people must have their DVA payments deposited into an Australian bank account. Money subsequently transferred from that account overseas can then incur relatively high bank transfer fees. The bill puts in place a mechanism through which clients can have their money paid directly into an overseas account, thereby avoiding these fees. This convenient and money-saving scheme is very similar to the way Centrelink supports its overseas clients.

This reform is a practical and supportive measure that will assist approximately 2,000 overseas clients currently residing in 70 countries around the world. This measure delivers on a promise by the Prime Minister in 2008 to review and improve payment structures for veterans living permanently overseas. It is expected that direct payments to DVA clients’ overseas bank accounts will be available from March 2010, with payments and transfers being handled by the Reserve Bank of Australia. This will ease the burden on a sizable group of Australian ex-service men and women and will reduce the economic hardship of relatively high bank transfer fees.

The third major area of reform contained in this bill relates to the cessation of the dependants pension. This scheme is an outdated and barely functioning arrangement which has outlived its usefulness and delivers diminishing benefits to clients. The purpose of the payment when it was introduced in 1914 was to provide financial support to the dependants of veterans. The dependants pension is not indexed and, as a result, the rates paid to dependants of veterans or members on a disability pension have not changed in decades, except for some GST compensation in 2000. For example, fortnightly payments to children have not changed since 1952, 57 years ago, and today range from a top payment of $2.86 down to a minimum rate of just 29c. That is not going to buy you a lot in this day and age. Fortnightly payments for partners and widows have remained unchanged since 1964, or 45 years ago. Fortnightly payments for partners and widows range from a top rate of $8.42 down to just 84c. These payments are clearly of little real value in today’s terms.

New entrants to the old dependants pension scheme were suspended in 1985. Clients still in this scheme at that time were given the option to cease their payments in exchange for a lump sum equal to three years payment. Some clients took up this option but some 26,000 recipients remain in the scheme today. The dependants pension goes nowhere near meeting the original aim of the scheme. It clearly fails to adequately support the dependants of veterans in today’s economy. Indeed, the scheme’s function is largely redundant, having been superseded by other, better targeted means of income support. Clients are now far better served by the income support provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Social Security Act 1991.

It is proposed that the dependants pension scheme be phased out on 22 September 2009, but the 26,000 people remaining in this scheme will not be worse off than they are at present. The small pension payments will cease, but these amounts do little to support dependants due to their diminished real value over time. The value of these payments is expected to be further eroded in the future, which would make the scheme increasingly inefficient and costly as time progresses. The clients will instead be offered a lump sum payment on 24 September this year which will be equal to three years pension payment. A lump sum payment will be of more use to many of those pensioners than a rapidly devaluing fortnightly amount. The lump sum payment will be exempt from income tax. War widow and widower pensions and orphan pensions will not be affected by this measure. Dependant pensions granted to people without adequate means of support are not affected by these measures.

The three measures contained in the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill will do much to improve the economic and social welfare of DVA pensioners, veterans and currently serving ADF personnel. The more efficient transfer of DVA payments to overseas recipients is long overdue and was promised by the Prime Minister, and I am pleased to see that this bill delivers it. The cessation of the outdated pension system for veterans’ dependants will bring to a close a rapidly diminishing payment that has outlived its usefulness. The opening of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to larger numbers of current service personnel is a step forward. It will encourage new recruits to the Defence Force and retain those already serving. I feel confident that the reforms contained in this bill will be beneficial to all members of the defence and veterans communities.

To the many veterans who live in the electorate of Robertson, I say thank you for your contribution towards making Australia a better place. Your contribution to the community of the Central Coast is notable and I very much speak on behalf of everyone else who lives there in saying thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to record my support for the measures contained within the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. This bill proposes a number of common-sense measures that will improve entitlements for veterans. This bill provides for the payment of entitlements, under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986, to a person resident overseas into an overseas bank account. That is a common-sense measure which will bring those arrangements into line with other major Commonwealth agencies, and indeed all of the families of veterans who are overseas report to me that that measure is more than welcome.

However, I do want to particularly commend the extension of access to the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. This bill will extend access to those persons who are eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme and around 7,500 extra people will now be eligible for that insurance scheme. Coming from an electorate which is close to the Richmond RAAF base, where I have a number of people who are eligible for defence housing, plenty of suburbs in my electorate have defence housing, including Beaumont Hills and Kellyville, particularly for RAAF personnel. This extension is important and it is something that I want to particularly record my support for.

If personnel qualify and are eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme then it is only logical that they ought to qualify for insurance as well. Defence personnel are often away from their homes. They are often in circumstances which prevent them from spending a lot of time concentrating on their dwellings or their household arrangements because we ask them to serve in faraway places, to go on exercises for prolonged periods, and to engage in activities that add extra stress and burden upon their families and their family homes. Therefore, this measure will be particularly welcome, and I think it is accurate to say that it will help with retention, recruitment and other benefits.

It is the case that many serving personnel and people who are considering service careers do consider the incentives and the attractions that are available to them to enhance their service and their career prospects. I recently had the opportunity to spend time on the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program speaking with all ranks of the military and all services from troops on the ground to service chiefs and vice chiefs. There is a very real sense that the entitlements and the incentives that the government provides to service personnel are deemed to be very important. This extension of the Defence Service Home Insurance Scheme to an extra 7,500 people is a good measure. I want to note in this place that, when you examine the cost, it is completely negligible compared with the amounts of money that we have been discussing in this place recently. For example, in 2009-10 the estimated financial impact to the Commonwealth is $0.2 million. In 2010-11 it is $0.2 million. In 2011-12 it is $0.3 million and in 2012-13 it is only $0.3 million as well.

Speaking to that point for a moment, the entire impact of this legislation that we are considering today is indeed quite negligible and I want to encourage governments of all persuasions to understand that the measures they take in relation to veterans are very important. Defence is a primary function of government. It is a proper function of government; therefore, veterans entitlements are a proper function of government as well. I think it is incumbent upon us in this place to ensure that we allow for the proper provision for people who serve us overseas.

When I visit various aged-care facilities in my electorate I find the most amazing veterans who served in World War II. I recently met an original Rat of Tobruk. It is a very profound experience to hear about their service and what they did. More typically today you will find personnel of the Vietnam veteran era moving through the entitlements system. We now have some challenges as a Commonwealth government with an entirely new generation of soldier who has served in new theatres with new methods of war including in the Middle East, including counterterrorism operations and including insurgency. This will create new challenges for those veteran categories.

I am pleased to say that within my electorate I have a very large veteran community, and the Castle Hill RSL does a fantastic job in organising that veteran community. Of course, with the proximity to the Richmond RAAF base we do see a lot of defence issues and defence housing issues. So that is all the more reason I think the extra access to the Defence Service Home Insurance Scheme is a good measure and something which I am pleased to be rising to support.

I do want to note while we have the opportunity that I think the third measure proposed by this bill, which is to wind up and pay out the dependants pensions paid to dependants of veterans, is a cost-saving measure and that is acceptable in some regards. It is an outdated scheme. I accept the arguments that have been put forward by members in this place, and when you examine the amounts and the lack of change over many, many decades there is a strong argument for this. I also do feel very strongly that in areas of defence and veterans affairs we ought not to be looking for cost savings in general and we should seek to ensure that those entitlements are properly accounted for in other ways.

Indeed, I was very impressed that when the Howard government first came to office in 1996 with an enormous budget deficit it quarantined Defence from any particular cuts. I thought that was a very impressive measure and something which all governments of all persuasions should seek to do. Defence and veterans’ affairs are areas where cuts and cost savings are perhaps not the best way to proceed in terms of governance, although we should look for efficiencies. It is certainly the case that the dependants pension system—which is referred to in this legislation and which is to be wound up—is out of date. You can see that when you consider that the maximum payments per fortnight for a partner and widows can be as low as $8.42 per fortnight or $2.86 per fortnight for children. Indeed, with minimum payments as low as 84c or 29c, clearly there is a need to restructure. I simply encourage the government to ensure that there is no loss of entitlement over time to dependants or to people who are dependants of veterans. Indeed, some of the information on how many people are affected or what kinds of people are being affected could be better explained in this legislation.

However, the scheme is obviously in need of a revamp. Everyone in this place will have no trouble supporting it. I simply note that it is very important that we continue to have a strong focus on the area of veterans’ affairs with whole new cohorts of young service men and now women moving through who have served in critical areas all around the world. We will have to have an intensified look at how we best deliver medical and practical outcomes to them with a whole new range of challenges. It is interesting to note that there are currently several critical reviews of veterans’ affairs, including a review into military superannuation.

When you speak with long-serving warrant officers in the Army, Air Force or Navy, they will recall to you that military superannuation is an issue of grave concern to service men and women. I would encourage the Rudd government to get on with ensuring these reviews are conducted speedily and that outcomes for serving personnel and veterans are looked at as soon as possible. People do see the defence forces as a difficult career. They see it as a big sacrifice and a big commitment. It is important that we structure the incentives and arrangements to allow them to do their job and to make a career of it. Much of the feedback that we received from the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program was that those incentives that had been removed, or those that over time had eroded in value, were becoming an impediment to careers within Defence. That is something that I want to record in this place.

Looking at the specific provisions in this legislation, on behalf of the veteran community in Mitchell I have received only positive feedback about these measures because they are simply common sense. They are allowing for existing Commonwealth arrangements in relation to bank accounts to be applied to veterans. They are extending the Defence Homes Insurance Scheme, which is a logical and welcome measure, and of course we are winding up a scheme which is no longer current. I simply record in this place my support for the legislation.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are many indicators on which a just and civil society can and, indeed, should be judged. One of those surely has to be how we assist our veterans and their families. We ask a great service of them and, in turn, we owe them a great debt. That is why I am pleased to rise today to add my voice to that of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Hon. Alan Griffin, in support of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009. Minister Griffin is indeed a friend to the veteran community. This legislation highlights the level of attention and consideration he has paid to veterans and their families since assuming his current role. This attention and consideration is in stark contrast to those opposite who had more than a decade in office, during which time they ignored repeated calls to enact the seemingly minor changes this legislation sees made.

The Rudd government’s second budget saw a number of measures put in place to assist our veterans. Just this week, Minister Griffin informed the House about the detail and impact of the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform) Bill 2009. That bill increases various income support and war widows pension rates; enacts structural reforms with a new pension supplement, a new seniors supplement and a new veteran supplement to replace a variety of current allowances; introduces revised pension income test arrangements, revised pension indexation and benchmarking arrangements using in part a new pensioner and beneficiary living cost index to complement the consumer price index; introduces transitional arrangements to ensure pensioners affected by the pension income test changes are not worse off; and closes the pension bonus scheme to new applicants, sees changes to advance payments and increases the pension age for non-veterans. This legislation—the Veterans Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009—complements these initiatives and gives effect to three portfolio budget measures of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. These are the extension of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to persons eligible under the Defence Force Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008, the cessation of dependants’ pensions and the payment of pensions and allowances into overseas bank accounts.

Under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, eligible persons may obtain building insurance through the Defence Service Homes (DSH) Insurance Scheme for their home, right of residence in a retirement village, land, building materials and home improvements. Home contents insurance is also available. Currently, persons eligible to access the DSH Insurance Scheme are Australian veterans, serving members or peace keepers or widows or widowers of any of these persons. Under the proposed amendment to the Defence Service Homes Act, Australian Defence Force members who are eligible for the new scheme will also be able to access discounted insurance products offered through the DSH Insurance Scheme. The extension of the scheme is a positive initiative that will provide ADF members who are eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme with an additional benefit. The initiative complements Defence’s new home loan subsidy scheme and creates an attractive package for ADF members.

There are currently about 80,000 building and contents insurance policyholders under the DSH Insurance Scheme. These numbers are reducing at around four percent a year. In 2007, a review of the DSH Insurance Scheme found the scheme should continue for the benefit of its policyholders but recommended an expansion of the scheme’s eligibility and product range to improve its longer term viability. It is expected the additional client numbers and premium revenue generated from amending the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 will enhance the sustainability of the DSH Insurance Scheme.

An estimated 7½ thousand Australian Defence Force and Reserve members will benefit from cost-effective home insurance. The extension of the DSH Insurance Scheme will be self-funding through premiums. This is good policy which will benefit those hardworking men and women of the Defence Force.

The cessation of dependants pensions will see the majority of existing payments of dependants pension cease and a lump sum equal to three years worth of the payment paid to each recipient. Around 26,000 people will receive a lump sum payment of up to $656.76. The dependants pension has not increased since 1952 for children and 1964 for wives, except for a small one-off increase for GST compensation in July 2000. The real value of these pensions has diminished over time and will continue to erode. The lump sum payment is scheduled to be made in September 2009 and will be of more benefit to most recipients than the small fortnightly payment.

The purpose of the payment, when it was introduced in 1914, was to provide financial support to the dependants of veterans. Other government programs, such as income support, available through the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Social Security Act 1991, provide this more effectively.

The minister and the government also announced the initiative to provide payments to an overseas financial institution where the recipient of a payment under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 is residing overseas. At the moment, payments provided to a VEA recipient residing overseas have to be made into a bank account in an Australian financial institution. Then the individual has to arrange the transfer of the funds to themselves overseas. By comparison, most Centrelink pensioners who live overseas in countries with reliable banking systems can receive their pension directly into an overseas bank account.

This measure delivers on a promise by the Prime Minister in 2008 to review the payment arrangements for Australian veterans and war widowers living overseas. This government is a friend to the veterans community and I would again take this opportunity to commend the minister on his legislative agenda and to thank him for his continued support of the veterans community in Northern Tasmania.

I had the pleasure of hosting the minister in Scottsdale, where he unveiled a carved statue of Anzac icon Simpson and his donkey. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the President of the Scottsdale RSL, Mr Bruce Scott, for his organisation and assistance on the day. I would like to pay a particular tribute to Mr Eddie Freeman for his superb craftsmanship of Simpson and his donkey, which he handcrafted out of macrocarpa, which is a fine timber.

The government is committed to maintaining and enhancing services and support to Australia’s ex-service community. As Minister Griffin has said, this legislation continues the progression we have made since coming to government to ensure that the support available through the veterans’ affairs portfolio is effective and equitable. I commend the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am taking this opportunity today to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 so that I can reflect on the circumstances facing Australian veterans. The coalition supports this bill, and I support this bill because these amendments are effective and appropriate changes. As a former major in the Australian Army I welcome the changes, which assist veterans and recognise the role veterans have played in this nation’s past and the important role veterans continue to play in our community. This bill will achieve changes in three areas: firstly, regarding the use of foreign bank accounts by veterans; secondly, providing further insurance options for certain veterans; and, finally, updating matters relating to the dependant pensions scheme.

Within Cowan there are two Returned and Services League sub-branches. There is the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL and the Ballajura RSL. I would also make mention of the North Perth Naval Association, which operates in Cowan as well as Moore. Before moving on to the specifics of this bill, I would like to pay tribute to the work the RSLs and the Naval Association undertake and the effort the executives put into those branches.

Everyone knows that the service clubs and associations are responsible for the commemorations which take place in the community. While those commemorative services take long hours and great commitment to organise, that is not all of the job; the clubs have other very important functions. Apart from the regular meetings and providing fellowship between veterans, there are also the important welfare and advocacy roles performed by members. Veterans take each others’ health and welfare very seriously; therefore, if a member is in hospital, regular visits will be arranged. No-one is forgotten, and it is easy to appreciate that the values learnt in times of conflict are not easily forgotten or put aside. In speaking to this bill today, it is somewhat disappointing that there are not also some more substantial elements to the veterans’ affairs legislation that we are debating or supporting. I will come to that later.

The essence of this bill has been conveyed to the Ballajura RSL, and they welcome the amendments. The sub-branch is ably overseen by Mike Gilmour, the President; Scotty Alcorn, the Secretary; Barry Burling as Treasurer; Brian Rose as Warden; and Les De Bonde as Pensions Officer. It has been my privilege to have worked with the Ballajura RSL since my election as the member for Cowan, and I observe that the work they undertake, as with all sub-branches, is done with enormous commitment and care for their members.

The Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL, which I am honoured to call the branch of my own membership, has John Xuereb as President, Ron Privilege as Immediate Past President, Wendy Tuffen as Junior Vice President, Rob Frencham as Secretary, John Duffy as Welfare Officer and John O’Keefe as Pensions Officer. Many other committed members who make up the team of hardworking veterans of this sub-branch also welcome the amendments in this bill for the additional support and recognition of veterans both here and overseas. The Perth North subsection of the Naval Association is led by Jack Le Cras, who is also president of the state section of the Naval Association. Doug Valeriani, likewise, is the secretary of both the state section and the Perth North subsection. Both are constituents of mine, I am very proud to say, and both are very busy and dedicated men working for veterans in our state of Western Australia.

I will now address the legislation in some detail. Firstly, the bill changes the law so that veterans pensions and allowances can be paid into overseas bank accounts. I welcome this change, and I know the veterans community also welcomes this change. I understand that this will bring payments from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs into line with other government agencies such as Centrelink. It is a point worth making that veterans served this country, and that service to our nation’s future can never be put aside. If they move to a different country, that does not and should not in any way limit our gratitude or obligation for their service. It is certainly my view that veterans, above all others, should have this form of consideration. I say that this change is good and appropriate. The second significant part of this bill is where those serving and eligible former service men and women who are able to receive the subsidised loan under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 will be able to access home insurance. I understand it is estimated that opening up the system to a greater number of serving and former service men and women will generate, over four years, $1 million through the receipt of premiums in excess of payouts for insurance claims.

Finally, the third element of this bill will see the cessation of the majority of dependants pensions. Under previous repatriation legislation, if a veteran or member was receiving a disability pension for incapacity, in certain circumstances the veteran or member’s dependants were also eligible for a dependants pension in respect of the veteran or member. Amendments to the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 changed aspects of dependants pensions. For example, previously, upon the death of a veteran, certain dependants other than a partner or child may have been eligible for a dependants pension—sometimes the dependent could be a family member such as a parent, sibling or even grandparent—but the changes to the legislation many years ago meant that future grants of dependants pensions would be made only to an eligible partner or child of a deceased veteran or member.

Of course, those already in receipt of the entitlement retained that entitlement. But changes to the act mentioned above, and other amendments, have meant that there have not been any new grants of this pension since 1985, nor have there been any rate increases for partners since 1964 and for children since 1952. It is a small payment being received by the recipients—for example, the maximum payment has been $8.42 per fortnight for a partner and widows and $2.86 per fortnight for children, with the minimum payments being 84c per fortnight and 29c per fortnight. Clearly it is not efficient or financially sensible to continue to administer this pension, and therefore the coalition supports the move to provide those people still in receipt of this dependants pension with a lump sum. This will be equivalent to three years worth of pensions, or 78 fortnights, and will be exempt from income tax.

While the coalition supports these amendments and this bill, it is unfortunate that there are in reality few new announcements which can be conveyed to our veterans, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, or even promises simply honoured. Even 20 months into its term the Rudd Labor government’s reckless spending has impacted on veterans by delivering few new announcements. What happened to the election promises? Twenty months is a very long time to keep reviewing the reviews. But that is what we have come to expect from this government. Having spoken to the veterans in my electorate of Cowan, I can say that amongst some of them there was an expectation raised by Labor when they said they would deliver on a number of reviews important to the veterans community. Two reviews remain outstanding. Instead of the extreme profligacy exercised by this government, it might have been more appropriate for them to have devoted some attention to the promises they made to veterans. I make reference to the Clarke review and the review into military superannuation. The Clarke review and the review into military superannuation have been undertaken, but no announcements have been made to date. In fact, what we are wondering on this side, and indeed what many veterans are wondering, is whether further consideration of the Clarke review has actually been completed, or whether it is just sitting somewhere, with some minister perhaps, waiting for some attention.

The government knows there is not going to be any money left. They are busy frittering away the money, putting up walls so that plaques can be put on them. The legacy of the coalition’s $22 billion surplus is well and truly spent. But time frames are being extended further and further for government action, so they do not have to admit they cannot deliver to our veterans—or worse, they are not approaching with an appropriate sense of urgency the reviews which have been undertaken and which require attention, consideration and announcements. Labor should pay more attention to the men and women who served this country in our defence forces, and they and should stop this embarrassing charade of ignoring important reviews and allowing lengthy delays for their conclusion, flying in the face of the promises that were made at the last election. I am extremely concerned that veterans will be another casualty of this most recent era of Labor’s reckless spending and the return to Labor basics—a big debt government—and there will simply not be any money available. While I support the bill before the House today and the three amendments which will provide some little assistance and benefit to veterans, I remain concerned that any big issues of concern to them will remain unaddressed in the foreseeable future under this government.

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

in reply—The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009 will benefit the ex-service and defence communities and enhance the effectiveness of the repatriation pension system. The first measure provides more convenient payment arrangements for Veterans’ Affairs pension recipients who live permanently overseas. Currently Veterans’ Affairs payments must be paid into a bank account in Australia and the recipients incur bank fees when transferring money internationally. This measure delivers on the Prime Minister’s commitment to review this arrangement and will enable Veterans’ Affairs recipients to have their pensions paid directly into bank accounts in those overseas countries with reliable banking systems.

The second measure will extend eligibility for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to persons eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008. The Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme currently provides home insurance to eligible Australian veterans and members, peacekeepers, widows and widowers. Eligibility for Defence Service Homes Insurance will be extended to those serving and former members and reservists eligible under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme established in 2008. This extension will provide eligible persons with access to cost-effective insurance designed specifically for the service and ex-service community.

The final measure will cease payment of an outdated dependants pension and will pay existing pension recipients a lump-sum payment. This lump-sum payment will be equivalent to three years of pension. Under previous repatriation legislation, certain dependants of veterans or members on disability pensions were eligible for a dependants pension at a rate which reflected the rate of the disability pension paid to the veteran or member. The purpose of the payment when it was introduced was to provide financial support to the dependants of veterans. Other government programs, such as the partner service pension and social security payments, now provide this support more effectively. The maximum fortnightly payments are $8.42 for partners and widows and $2.86 for children. The minimum payments are 84c and 29c respectively. This small pension has been virtually frozen for many decades and new grants of the pension ceased in 1985.

The government will pay a one-off payment equivalent to three years of payments to current recipients. Entitlement to the dependant pension will cease on 22 September 2009. We anticipate the lump-sum payment will be made on 24 September 2009. It should be noted that dependant pensions that were granted on the basis that the person was without adequate means of support are not part of this measure and continue to be paid at existing rates. I also want to make it quite clear that existing war widow and widower and orphan pensions are not affected by this measure.

This bill continues this government’s commitment to an effective and equitable repatriation system that responsibly supports Australia’s ex-service and defence communities. I will take this opportunity to address some of the issues raised in the debate across the House. I thank the House for the broad support for these measures from both the opposition and, of course, the government, but I think it is only fair to pick up on some of the points that have been made with respect to some of these issues. I will start off with a couple of broad points.

What we are seeing from the opposition today is a situation where they are endorsing measures that they had over a decade in government to act upon. We are now seeing a situation where the opposition all of a sudden have had an epiphany on so many issues in the veterans’ affairs area and now they are concerned. I will give you an example. The first measure I mentioned was around the question of convenient payment arrangements for pensioner recipients who live permanently overseas. This was a matter raised by Legacy in their budget wish list every year for quite some time—certainly for all the years that I was the shadow minister and before that. The previous government ignored it. The previous government would not act upon it. It is good to see them today in a position where they did not do it but can approve the fact that we have done it. But when they had the chance they did not do it—they did not for over a decade.

It does not stop there. Let us go through some other issues. Previous speakers have talked about some of the reviews that are underway. It is passing strange that what we have got here is an opposition who, when they were in government and had an opportunity to act on some of these issues, refused to do so. Let us take for example the issue of the Clarke review. The Clarke review made a series of recommendations which the previous government refused to act upon. They refused to act upon them. Now they are complaining that we are taking too long to act on things that they either refused to consider or rejected.

Let us go to another issue: the F111 deseal-reseal, which was mentioned by at least one of the previous speakers. I made a commitment in opposition to ensure that a parliamentary inquiry through one of the committees took place to consider some of the outstanding issues—because there were outstanding issues. On the very day I made that commitment, the then minister, the member for Dunkley, refused to act. No-one on that side of the chamber—or, at that stage, when they were on this side of the chamber in government—was prepared to act. Now they are saying that we are taking too long.

Superannuation is another issue that was mentioned. Let us again be clear on that. The government are taking quite some time—absolutely—to ensure that we get the issue of military superannuation right and the question of reviewing indexation issues through the Matthews report properly considered. But there are two points in relation to the previous government. Firstly, on the issue of indexation, they would not budge. They did not budge for more than a decade. They would not act. They did not act. They refused to even consider it.

Then we go to the question of military superannuation. The report was received by the then government in something like July 2007 and they refused to release it. They would not even allow a situation where people could see what that review proposed. They would not provide a government response and they would not even tell people what was in the report. They would not consult with the ex-service community or other interested parties. They just sat on it. We have gone through a process and we are considering that within government and a response will follow in due course. But it is a bit rich for people who refused to even release the report publicly to come out and say, ‘What are you doing?’—when all they did was hide.

I think probably the biggest issue, which was mentioned by the member for Paterson, relates to pension reform, particularly the question of the special-rate TPI pension. The member for Paterson quoted from a letter from the national president of the TPI federation. Let us get the context right so that people can understand this. The government’s response to pension reform, based on the issue of income support pensions, came out through the budget after the Harmer report. It produced a series of figures which related to the circumstances around those who are reliant on income support payments from government. It is true that that does not cover disability pensions as provided through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for war-caused disabilities. Those are compensation payments. They are separate from the question of income support—and so they should be. It is a longstanding principle. But the interesting thing here is that we have some on the other side suggesting that they might be interested and potentially willing to support some increases in relation to that area. Again, it is amazing what happens when all of a sudden you cannot make a decision. All of a sudden they are thinking about making them or they are suggesting they might or they are intimating they will.

It needs to be remembered what the position of the now opposition has been around the question of income support reform during this term. Let us give them some credit—they at least had a policy in this area. Members remember that under the previous Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, the member for Bradfield, the circumstances were that they made an announcement in the lead-up to that reform process about a $30 a week increase in the single age pension. There is a problem with that, isn’t there? It excludes a whole range of other pensioners and income support recipients, including those within the veteran community who are on service pensions. The RSL raised this question and said, ‘We’re sure that the opposition means to include service pensions and we can’t believe that they don’t.’ Guess what—they did not. Their initial proposal did not include service pensioners. It did not even include aged service pensioners.

Then what happened? There was a change of leadership. I am talking about the last one, not the one that is about to happen. In that change of leadership, the circumstances were that there was a change in the position and they added in service pensioners. They still excluded a whole range of others who were on income support payments and they still excluded a whole range of deserving people within the veterans community, but they did at least finally include aged service pensioners in their proposal. They never at any time included disability pensions through veterans affairs. So on one of the few occasions when we actually had a policy from the opposition, it specifically excluded those for whom they are now suggesting they may be interested in providing some support.

They have a track record on this. You have to look at what they did with respect to this area when they were in government. When they were in government, they presided over a massive erosion of the value of the special rate pension in relation to male total average weekly earnings. Until the very throes of the last election, they never ensured that the indexation system in place allowed for maintenance of value for those pensions under male total average weekly earnings. They only did it and announced it in September of 2007 and they only did it after we announced our policy at the time of the May budget in 2007, when we committed as an opposition to act according to that approach in government.

That is what we did. We supported that approach when the government finally agreed to put it forward in the shadows of the election, we endorsed it, and we carried it through in government. But it took them 10 years to take action to address that anomaly, and now they are suggesting that—just maybe—they will do something about it now. That is what we are seeing right across the board here. Less than two years ago, they were in government, they were leaders of power. They had 10-plus years of opportunity to fix all these outstanding issues. Now this government is acting on some of those issues, reviewing what was not done, working out the best way forward and considering issues that they ignored over so many years. Now they are basically encouraging us to act quickly on matters and issues that they refused to act upon, matters and issues that they rejected, and matters and issues on which they acted inconsistently when in government but have now all of a sudden had some sort of conversion on the road to Damascus. Frankly, it is amazing, it is galling and it does them no credit whatsoever.

This bill deserves to be supported, because it addresses some longstanding issues. I will pick up another one. We had the member for Lindsay talking about the fact that under the mental health funding in the budget there is only some $9.5 million to deal with these issues within veterans’ affairs. He said he did not think that was enough. Let us go back through that. That $9.5 million comes as a result of recommendations that came from Professor Dunt’s report into suicide in the ex-service community. It is part of a package which relates to another $83 million over the forward estimates with respect to mental health issues inside Defence and in the transition out. All of this relates to the issues dealing with the ex-service community, both those who are ex-service now and those who will be in the years ahead. But let us remember the genesis for this: the commitment that we made, while in opposition, to an inquiry into suicide in the ex-service community. Guess what—again this was a proposal put forward to the previous government and rejected. This was a proposal to which the previous government said, ‘No, it won’t produce results; it is not necessary.’ What it led to under this government is the series of recommendations we are now dealing with that will address some of the neglect that has occurred in this area. It has led to some $90 million-plus across two portfolios to deal with these sorts of issues.

We have members of the opposition saying that this is not enough—in a situation where their own government rejected having the inquiry that is the basis for this increase. They did not think there was such a problem that it was even worth looking at and now they cry crocodile tears, suggesting that it is not enough money. I ask where the member for Lindsay, the member for Paterson and the member for Greenway were when their government was rejecting taking this action in the first place. Where were they when these matters should have been looked at under the previous government? Anyone who thinks that these matters have cropped up in only the last two years is on I do not know what planet, but I do not think it is Earth. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.