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

I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. Can I say at the outset that this bill has the coalition’s support and it is not my intention to delay the Main Committee for too long today. The bill contains five minor amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Before I address the bill I would like to make a few comments, particularly in relation to my discussions with leaders of the ex-service community, about the workings of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.

I would like to place on record my appreciation for the leaders of our ex-service community. These leaders work very hard on behalf of their members to achieve a better deal for veterans. I look forward to continuing to work with them over the coming months, particularly as we move into congress season. The Tasmanian RSL will hold their state congress this Friday in George Town and I look forward to speaking there about the issues that are important to the veteran community. I also want to say that I will be speaking further to ex-service community leaders today and tomorrow about the federal budget and I will have more to say on this topic, particularly in relation to specific measures that were announced, during the budget debate in coming weeks.

Over the parliamentary recess I have been able to meet with many ex-service community leaders. I especially want to speak about a visit I had to Adelaide a few weeks ago where I met a very determined advocate for the veteran community. I will not name this person; he knows who he is. Needless to say, this person is literally available at the other end of a telephone to provide whatever support and assistance is necessary to veterans, particularly those returning from recent conflicts in Timor-Leste, Afghanistan and Iraq. A valuable insight into the emerging needs of the veteran community meant that this meeting certainly was an important one. I also had an opportunity to meet with tomorrow’s veterans—those men and women currently serving in the Australian Defence Force—as a participant in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. I urge and encourage any of my parliamentary colleagues who have not participated in this program to do so.

The Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010 has five provisions. Firstly, the amendment removes provisions of the VEA which relate to benevolent homes. Under the VEA, veterans in receipt of a pension through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs would have part of the pension automatically paid to the benevolent home. This provision is now redundant, with the last benevolent home closing in 1994. This change, which ensures the VEA remains a working act meeting the needs of the veteran community, brings the VEA into line with other acts of parliament which no longer refer to benevolent homes.

Labour market programs are operated by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and provide a pathway back to employment for people who need to gain new skills in order to re-enter the workforce. Under arrangements that exist for labour market programs, participants are paid to train and gain work experience. However, under arrangements in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, payments made to veterans who participate in labour market programs are treated differently. For example, under the VEA, money paid to a participant for expenses associated with training are exempt from the VEA income test. However, payments for expenses for part-time work experience are not exempt. On this basis, there is a disincentive for veterans participating in a labour market program to undertake work experience in case any reimbursement for expenses adversely affects a pension they are in receipt of. This proposed change is important in allowing more veterans to re-engage with the workforce where they choose to do so and where they require new skills, and it is welcomed by the veterans community. It provides veterans with greater flexibility in their dealings with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and makes the VEA a fairer act.

One of the more significant changes in this bill is a move to force veterans’ partners, where they are eligible, to receive a foreign pension where they are required to do so under law. I will explain this change in greater detail. Currently, a veteran’s partner who is entitled to a foreign pension is under no legal obligation to accept that pension. In many cases, the pensions are very small amounts of money. Under the changes made by this amendment, the veteran’s partner is required to access that foreign pension and report it as income under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. It is anticipated that, in the vast majority of cases, those affected by this change will be better off. Because of the cut-in point of the income test and the expected small amount of those pensions, the small number of veterans affected by this change ought to be better off. However, the coalition would like to hear from any veteran or veteran’s partner who considers they will be, or have been, directly impacted in a negative way as a result of these changes.

This is best explained by way of an example. I point out that this is illustrative and does not indicate the personal circumstances of any individuals affected by this change. For example, Mr and Mrs Jones are entitled to a service pension under the VEA. Mr Jones has qualifying service from the Vietnam War and Mrs Jones is entitled to access a British pension of approximately $20 a fortnight but, until now, has not done so. Under this proposed change, Mr and Mrs Jones are required to apply for the British pension that Mrs Jones is entitled to. When granted, Mrs Jones must notify the Department of Veterans’ Affairs that she is now in receipt of the pension. Given its small amount, Mr and Mrs Jones’s pension is unlikely to be affected, resulting in their being $20 a fortnight better off.

This amendment will also allow the partner of a veteran to receive, where eligible, a lump sum in arrears payment for the period in which they have been eligible but have not been receiving their foreign pension. Importantly, the VEA will be amended to allow greater flexibility in the calculation of that income and its effect on the receipt of future pensions from DVA. For example, in the case of Mr and Mrs Jones, Mrs Jones was entitled to access her British pension five years ago and the British government has calculated her entitlement and paid a lump sum of $2,250, taking into account inflation and exchange rates. Under the VEA income test, this one-off lump sum payment may impact on Mr and Mrs Jones’s overall service pension payments. Currently, this one-off payment which has accrued over five years will be treated as one year’s income, which may result in a reduction in Mr and Mrs Jones’s pension. However, under this amendment, Mrs Jones’s lump sum will be calculated as if it had been paid over five years and, in this case, Mr and Mrs Jones’s pension will not be affected by the payment of a lump sum and they will continue to be better off as a result of accessing the foreign pension.

It is expected that the proposed changes will better align the VEA with other, similar acts that deal with foreign pensions. We are told that they will ensure that Australia’s veterans continue to receive beneficial treatment under the VEA. I reiterate my interest in hearing from any veteran, their partner or family members about their individual circumstances if they are made worse off by this amendment.

The final amendment relates to superannuation assets that have gone ‘turtle up’, for want of a better phrase, perhaps as a result of the global financial crisis. Under this amendment, where the value of the specified superannuation asset has been frozen and the veteran is no longer able to access the asset at call, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs may in exceptional circumstances declare part of the asset disregarded for the purposes of the assets test under the VEA. However, this determination on the general asset will not apply to the deemed income rules or assets deprivation rules.

This bill is relatively minor and has the coalition’s support. Can I just indicate again my appreciation to the dedicated men and women of Border Protection Command. I was able to spend time with them during the exchange program with the ADF in late April. I hope that the work we do here on behalf of today’s veterans will flow on to provide the maximum level of assistance to our younger and future veterans.

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

I rise to speak in support of the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. We have just had Anzac Day. As many members of this place would know, we come across wonderful people who have served our country in times of crisis, conflict and war. We see them on Anzac Day and acknowledge their wonderful service to our community, their deeds of valour and the sacrifices made by them and their families. In our various communities within Australia and as a country we need to recognise their deeds, their heroism and their commitment to our country. Therefore, I am very sympathetic towards providing the maximum amount of assistance to veterans, and their families, to ensure that they can retire from their working lives with dignity, respect and financial security and that their widows or widowers are also treated in a decent and humane way in the future.

Veterans’ entitlements must be modern, must be equitable and must have a degree of consistency, but also there must be a benign approach with respect to their social security requirements and entitlements. Generally we will see some benefit to veterans and their families as a result of these amendments. The amendments in this legislation remove inequities between other pieces of legislation governing social security law and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, which governs entitlements given to veterans for their service. We need to make sure that any income test which is applied does not have loopholes, is consistent and has integrity, and we want to make sure that administration of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act by the government and the department shows degrees of humanity, and also consistency and stability, so that veterans have certainty about their entitlements. We need to ensure that the legislation is modern, does not lack consistency and is not redundant.

The amendments improve the law governing veterans’ entitlements in five stages. Some of them are minor and some of them are technical, but they are important nonetheless. We need to make sure that there is consistency between the Social Security Act, acts and regulations and veterans’ entitlements law. The changes improve how we govern veterans’ entitlements and they correct anomalies. As the previous speaker said, they result in a more favourable pension outcome for people and they are evidence of the government’s commitment to ensuring that veterans receive the maximum number of entitlements.

Last night the budget came down, with amendments and improvements to the law governing veterans. There are significant improvements to military funding for our defence forces as well. Currently we have military personnel overseas in the Middle East, in Iraq and, particularly, fighting on our behalf against Islamic fascism in Afghanistan. We need to make sure that the legislation governing those people is just and humane as it deals with them when they come back from those areas of conflict.

The amendments deal particularly with five aspects. The first aspect I deal with is the labour market programs. The first group of amendments deal with that. Labour market programs are administered by Centrelink on behalf of DEEWR. We are going to make sure that the legislation is up to date in its semantics, terminology and nomenclature. We want to make sure that it is consistent with the outcomes under the social security law. Under the legislation, certain payments made under labour market programs are exempt under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The amendments before the House replace redundant terms such as ‘labour force programs’ with the current term ‘labour market programs’. The amendments make sure that payments received by those people who participate cover their expenses associated with undertaking work experience under a labour market program and that those payments are exempt as income. That is a good thing from the point of view of the veterans. Such payments are exempt under social security law but not currently under the VEA, so this is an important change that will make a difference in people’s lives.

The second aspect deals with ‘benevolent homes’. I have always found this a curious term. I have heard it on numerous occasions in the past, but there is reference to it in the VEA and it refers to institutions in which a person may be placed for a prolonged period of time, according to the digest. It could apply to an adult being placed due to mental illness or a young child or person being placed for the care of that child or person. What we are doing with these changes is removing the last reference to benevolent homes. In the mid-1990s, the last remaining benevolent home ceased operation, and that was a good thing. Inmates of benevolent homes—those that are still with us—can now be found in aged-care facilities across the country. These provisions dealing with benevolent homes are therefore redundant and have been for years. They have been superseded by the legislation governing aged care, which is the Aged Care Act 1997, so the changes here simply remove redundant provisions.

The third aspect deals with foreign pensions. They deal with the requirement to claim a comparable foreign pension. The amendments require someone who is a partner of someone getting a VEA income support pension to claim a comparable foreign pension. I think that is a prudent measure. If they are entitled to do so, they should have done so by now. It adds integrity to our system and I think what we are doing here makes sense. If they claim this, it is likely their income will be greater than it currently is, notwithstanding that their claim may have other negative impacts on any VEA or other entitlements coming to that household. Partners of existing income support recipients who are entitled will be required to claim that comparable foreign pension within six months of being notified by the department that they are required to do so. I think that is sensible. I think it is quite a nationalistic approach, but I think it makes sense for the integrity of the VEA system in this country.

The fourth aspect deals with the treatment of arrears—this is quite a complicated matter—and how lump sum payments of arrears are dealt with when comparable pensions are assessed. Generally we know that pensioners are better off under social security provisions, as the amount of any arrears payment results in a debt under that legislation. That debt is generally less than any cumulative rate of reduction in income support for the following year under the VEA, so they are better off. The legislation contains loopholes under which a person receiving a service pension who receives a lump sum arrears payment of a comparable foreign pension can transfer it to a social security pension to avoid the application of the income test to the arrears payment. This loophole should be closed and it will provide a better outcome for veterans and their dependants. That is a sensible provision. It makes sure that there is a greater alignment between the social security legislation and the VEA.

The final aspect covered by this legislation deals with certain superannuation investments. The previous speaker talked about superannuation funds going belly up or turtle up—I am not quite sure how she eloquently put it, but she meant that they are no good anymore. Under section 52AA of this legislation, the minister can make a determination under the VEA that certain superannuation investments are exempt under the assets test. Such a determination could result in an investment being unintentionally exempt from provisions regarding deemed income and the deprivation of assets. That was recognised and changed back in 2006 with the social security legislation. The amendments here clarify that the provisions regarding deemed income and deprivation of assets will continue to apply to superannuation investments covered by the determination the minister might make under section 52AA.

While I am here, I will take the opportunity to commend the government on an issue of veterans’ entitlements. It deals with the Clarke review. There have been people who have been tragically exposed to nuclear testing, and their service was long unrecognised. We have in this budget provided $36 million to implement key recommendations of the Clarke review of veterans’ entitlements, which were sadly ignored by the previous government. I want to commend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs for his advocacy in this regard. I have had many discussions with him about it. He is passionate about seeking justice for those veterans who have been exposed.

The benefits provided here will make a difference in the lives of people, including constituents of mine who have spoken to me about it. It is long-overdue recognition for those military personnel who have suffered. As part of the package that we have announced, $24.2 million over five years will go towards providing disability pensions, war widow or widower pensions and healthcare benefits to people who have suffered from conditions relating to their nuclear test service. Potentially 2,700 surviving veterans will benefit. Subject to any legislative changes, those benefits will apply from 2010.

I think this is a long-overdue change. It is something that I have advocated for a long time. It is something that people have talked to me about in my role as a federal member of parliament. I think, in the measures we have undertaken, they will receive a degree of justice for the work they did on behalf of us. By accepting Justice Clarke’s recommendations, we are looking after our veterans who have campaigned long and hard for many years in relation to this. They were put into situations where they were exposed to nuclear tests at Maralinga and other places such as Emu Field. Many of them suffered and many of them died.

We have taken a fair and balanced approach. We are recognising the work that they have done. We are opening up their eligibility. We are providing compensation and recognising their service. That is something that the country should have done a very long time ago. I think the government has finally done what it should have done and what previous governments should have done—that is, recognise the nature of the service and the fact that these personnel had no choice. They were put into a situation on behalf of all of us and served our country. They did what was right for our country and they were exposed. They did not know any better and finally the government has taken steps to give them a degree of justice.

I commend the minister for what he has done. I think he has shown a degree of humanity and a commitment to justice that are exemplary. I want to thank those people who have campaigned so long and hard. Veterans across the country finally will see their service recognised as non-warlike hazardous. I think, in the circumstances, their service and their campaigning should be acknowledged and applauded. I commend the legislation to the House.

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

I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. This bill is yet another in a series of bills that affect veterans and future veterans alike. This government seems to believe that tinkering on the edges of policy development and introducing administration bill after administration bill on veterans affairs issues are wholesale substitutes for policy reform. It is disappointing that I again stand here and debate yet another bill that fails to deal with the No. 1 issue that affects our veteran community, an issue that the Rudd Labor Party said prior to the 2007 election it would fix. I refer, of course, to the Rudd Labor government’s promise to fix the indexation of military superannuation pensions.

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin, is now also the Minister for Defence Personnel. There can no longer be any buck-passing between ministerial portfolios in veterans affairs or defence as to who has responsibility for defence superannuation. The matter now rests entirely in the hands of Minister Griffin. It was Minister Griffin who, prior to the last election, demanded that action be taken on military superannuation. It was Minister Griffin who said he would fix the problem. I will come to more on that later.

This bill sets out to amend certain sections of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act so that its provisions are more closely aligned to provisions found in the Social Security Act. Overall the changes are non-controversial and in general, on the advice provided by the government, will not leave any veterans worse off.

The first amendment in this bill will remove all references to benevolent homes. Benevolent homes are institutions where persons may stay for extended periods of time, such as places for the mentally ill. Traditionally a person would receive a reduced pension if they were living at a benevolent home, with the deducted portion of their pension being paid directly to the benevolent home. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Carer Pension and Other Measures) Act 1995 effectively removed the vast majority of provisions that referred to benevolent homes; however, similar changes were not made to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act because at the time there were still pensioners receiving a reduced pension on the grounds that they were residents of benevolent homes. As benevolent homes no longer exist and as there are no longer any veterans who are affected by these provisions, this bill will simply repeal from the Veterans’ Entitlements Act all references to benevolent homes.

This bill also seeks to simplify arrangements pertaining to veterans participating in labour market programs that are administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations that are designed to assist those looking to enter or re-enter the workforce. Assistance can include training for unemployed people, support services and formal vocational training, all of which are delivered by the national employment services system, Job Services Australia.

Currently veterans do not need to include any payments they receive under a labour market program in the income test if those payments cover expenses such as uniforms. However, payments they may receive for part-time work experience under a labour market program are subject to the income test. This acts as a disincentive for veterans to undertake part-time training, as the small amounts of money they would potentially receive may negatively affect their pension payments. The amendments contained within this bill will align the treatment of payments for expenses and part-time training with those contained in the Social Security Act. Simply put, this means that veterans receiving payments for undertaking part-time training as a part of a labour market program will no longer have to worry about those payments potentially affecting their pension payments.

The next amendment contained within this bill will require a veteran’s partner to claim any foreign pension to which they are entitled. This provision is based on the underlying rationale that a person who has the means to support themselves financially should utilise his or her own means or resources before receiving financial support from the public purse. This amendment will again align provisions found in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act with the Social Security Act, and will compel the partner of a veteran in receipt of a service pension or income support supplement to claim and receive any foreign pension they are entitled to receive. Although the majority of those veterans affected by this change will be better off, I echo the sentiments of my colleague the member for Greenway in stating that the coalition would like to hear from any veterans or their families who find themselves worse off under these changes.

Following on from the previous amendment regarding entitlements to foreign pensions, this bill will also amend the manner in which a lump sum foreign pension payment is treated in regard to an income test. It is important to note that foreign pensions are sometimes paid as a lump sum, particularly at the commencement of receipt of that pension, due to the time taken for the overseas agency to determine the entitlement and then process the claim. Often these lump sum payments pay an amount in arrears over a number of months or indeed years. By way of example, under current legislation, if a veteran were to receive a lump sum pension payment from a foreign source, that payment would be treated as income over one financial year even though that lump sum may have included payments in arrears for a period of two or three years or even longer. The situation would most often result in a reduction to the veteran’s pension, as a lump sum is considered a part of that person’s income under the income test. This amendment will simply ensure that any foreign pension lump sum payment is treated as income over the years for which it has been accrued and paid rather than treating it as income received during one financial year only. Whilst this amendment will likely benefit most veterans, some may incur a debt as a result of this legislative change, particularly those who receive large lump sums for a period covering more than 12 months. I would urge the government to ensure that the veterans who find themselves in this situation are given ample time to pay off this debt, as it would be totally unacceptable that any veteran should be left with a debt through no fault of their own and forced to repay it at an unreasonable rate just because of the government’s short-sightedness or lack of attention to detail.

Finally, this bill seeks to amend the provisions in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act for the disregarding of an asset. This provision will empower the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to make a determination with regard to the exclusion of an asset from the asset test where that asset has lost its value or that asset cannot be assessed. For example, if the asset is sold without an adequate return or value, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs may disregard the asset under the assets test. Furthermore, if the asset is unable to be assessed by the person, which may occur in the event of frozen superannuation assets or bankruptcy of that asset, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs may also disregard the asset under the assets test. This amendment to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act will align it with similar provisions under the Social Security Act.

On the information provided by the government to the opposition that no veteran will be worse off under this bill, the coalition support the measures contained in the bill. We believe they will help ease the administrative burden placed on veterans through aligning the aforementioned amendments with those provisions contained in the Social Security Act. However, yet again we see that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is simply tinkering around the edges with policy. Much as with the budget that was handed down last night, Minister Griffin continues to demonstrate that he is unwilling or unable to take the tough decisions. It is more talk and no action. The minister happily announced during his second reading speech on this bill that it:

This bill continues the government’s ongoing commitment to supporting Australia’s veteran community and their families and ensuring their wellbeing now and into the future.

That is the talk. As for the action, it has now been over two years since the release of the Podger review into military superannuation reform and not one word has been uttered by the Rudd Labor government. The Rudd Labor government also failed to respond to parts of the Clarke review, failed to review advocacy funding and delayed the introduction of the Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Bill 2010, a bill that many veterans are sweating on the outcome of.

Although I support this bill, it does nothing to address the core concerns of the veteran community. As the Defence Force Welfare Association pointed out in its response to last night’s federal budget, there is:

Nothing for long suffering military superannuants whose standard of living continues to deteriorate due to unfair indexation and taxation of MSBS and DFRDB superannuation pensions and the gouging of DFRDB superannuation benefits that service men and women paid for during their working lives.

In addition to that, in a situation where this government has announced that we will have a peak debt of $93.7 billion, at a time when it is spending an additional $1 billion just to bail out the Home Insulation Program, how much would the government have been able to do for our veteran community if it had managed our economy economically responsibly? How much would that $1 billion that is being spent to fix up a failed insulation program have been able to do for our veteran community?

The minister will argue that in the current economic circumstances there is nothing that they can do for the military superannuants under the MSBS or the DFRDB. I put to the government: your delay in responding to the report, which was tabled on 24 December 2007, your blatant disregard for the financial situation of those former members and current members of the military in relation to their superannuation payments and the fact that you are prepared to spend the taxes that they have paid in other means without due regard to their needs says that you have been negligent in the performance of your duty. I do not mean ‘you’ as the Deputy Speaker, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker; I mean the government, the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Veterans deserve a government that is upfront and honest with regard to its policies and promises—something the current government has failed to be on both counts.

Further, the Defence Force Welfare Association pointed out in its response last night, in addition to what I said before, that there has been:

No decision on the reclassification of the service of certain counter terrorism special operations undertaken by SAS personnel.

No decision to remove the remaining level of erosion to the value of the Veterans’ Disability Pensions nor to adjust them in line with the increase in community living standards since 1997.

Again, that has been held back because of the amount of debt created by the government, by the sheer fact that they are going to be paying $6.5 billion in interest payments to fund that debt. Again, I put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a statement that I put to the government: if the government had run their economy as the economic conservatives they said they would be, there would have been money freed up that could have been spent on our veteran community.

The wholesale changes that the veteran community were expecting after the promises made by Labor at the last election have simply failed to materialise. This government is unable to make the tough decisions and unable to undertake serious reform. That point was made clear not only in this bill but also in last night’s big-taxing, big-spending Labor budget. This year’s budget deficit of $40.8 billion, the second biggest since World War II, when combined with the continued reckless spending by the Rudd Labor government, will result in only piecemeal policies for veterans and result in legislative changes such as those contained in this bill that only tinker at the very edges of the policy reform that is really needed. As I said, veterans deserve a government that is upfront and honest with regard to its policies and promises—something that this government has failed to be on both counts. At the very least, veterans deserve a government that respects them for their past service rather than paying lip-service.

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

I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. The measures introduced by this bill will improve the delivery of government policy entitlements to our veterans. Members of the nation’s ex-service communities will receive substantial benefits from these measures. The bill is also about clarifying, correcting and amending legislation pertaining to veterans’ entitlements in the interests of returned servicemen and servicewomen. This is a bill that will make life easier for many. It is a continuation of this government’s ongoing commitment to the veteran community. We want to ensure that the policies, provisions and entitlements provided to our veterans and the way that these entitlements are delivered are as good as they possibly can be.

I will give a brief outline of a few of the key components of this legislation. The main provisions of this bill are intended to align the Veterans’ Entitlements Act with like provisions in the Social Security Act. The bill includes amendments that will exempt from veterans’ entitlements income test payments associated with part-time work experience under a labour market program. This measure aligns the veterans’ entitlements law with social security law and ensures the consistent treatment of these types of payments across most acts.

The bill will also amend the Veterans’ Entitlements Act so that the partner of a service pension or income support supplement claimant or recipient will be required to claim a comparable foreign pension if the partner is entitled to such a pension. This provides a consistency between the veterans’ entitlements law and the social security law, and can result in a pensioner couple receiving more income overall. These changes will provide for greater certainty in the administration of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, remove redundant provisions and correct an anomaly whereby pensioners paid under the social security law in some cases received a more favourable pension outcome than service pensioners and income support supplement recipients.

There are many veterans and their families living on the Central Coast of New South Wales who will welcome the measures laid out in the bill. The Central Coast, where my electorate of Robertson is situated, has long been a favoured retirement destination for people from Sydney and other parts. This has especially been the case in the decades since World War II. As a result, the electorate of Robertson today is home to a very large proportion of veterans, their families and dependants. As at the beginning of January 2010 there were 4,212 people living in Robertson receiving a Department of Veterans’ Affairs pension or allowance or holding a DVA treatment or pharmaceutical card. This group includes over 1,360 disability pensioners and more than 1,400 war widows.

Most of these veterans are located in the Gosford City LGA. It has by far the highest veteran population of any local government area in New South Wales. The number is exceeded by only four LGAs in South-East Queensland, making Gosford City the fifth largest concentration of veterans in Australia. 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 thousands of my constituents and their families.

There are 20 separate veteran associations represented in my electorate. These include a wide range of DVA benefit recipients, including the War Widows Guild, several RSL club branches, the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association, the ex-Prisoners of War Welfare Association and two ex-servicewomen’s associations—just to name a few. I have the great honour of being a patron to the local branch of both the National Servicemen’s Association and the Vietnam Veterans Association. I am also an honorary member of the Central Coast and Gosford branch of the World War II veterans association.

At this point I want to name Jeff Turner, president of the World War II 1939-45 veterans association Central Coast Gosford branch. Jeff approached me recently for assistance in applying for a federal volunteers grant—a small grant to assist in the purchase of computer equipment for that organisation of hardworking volunteers.

The very special thing that the World War II veterans do is engage veterans to help other veterans throughout their extended support networks. This is important to note in the context of the bill presently before the House. Being a returned serviceman or servicewoman presents many challenges to our veterans, their families and their carers, not the least of which is navigating the maze of entitlements and regulations attached to pensions and payments due to these individuals. It is not uncommon for friends and families of veterans to spend hours at a time untangling administrative issues associated with their entitlement claims. Any and all measures that simplify matters and assist veterans to access their entitlements take the burden off them, their families and their carers. That is why an organisation like the World War II veterans is so important. By linking veterans together to help each other through difficult times, advocate on each other’s behalf and provide experienced advice, these organisations are often the bedrock of the veteran community support network. I congratulate them all on their hard work and their ongoing compassion.

Another example of tireless work by veterans on behalf of other veterans is Rick Johnson from the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association. Rick 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 and struggled to do better for the lives of Australian nuclear veterans. I have worked quite closely with all these associations to ensure their concerns are brought to the attention of the minister and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

I am also very pleased to announce that in September 2009 more than $7,100 in funding was given to two veterans’ organisations on the Central Coast under the federal government’s Veteran and Community Grants program. The Veteran and Community Grants provide on the ground funding for local projects that promote health and wellbeing in the veterans community. The National Servicemen’s Association of Australia, New South Wales Branch, Gosford City sub-branch received $6,000 in funding from the Australian government to support the health and wellbeing of local ex-servicemen. This grant assisted the local nashos to conduct a bus tour for the local veterans community to the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Surprisingly, some of those members had not had that opportunity prior to this occasion. In addition to this grant, the Gosford sub-branch of the RSL received over $1,000 from the program. The sub-branch will use it to purchase equipment and resources for the Broadwater RSL day club.

Projects funded through these grants programs include initiatives that encourage veterans, war widows and widowers to learn new life skills—skills that will help them remain independent as well as provide for social activities and support for their carers. Veteran and Community Grants are available to ex-service and community organisations, veteran representative groups and private organisations that contribute to the health and welfare of the veteran community. I congratulate both of these organisations for their good work and their valuable initiatives to support Central Coast veterans.

I also take particular pride in seeing the increasing attendance at Anzac Day ceremonies across the Central Coast over the past few years. It seems that more and more young people are recognising the contribution that returned ex-servicemen have made and it is something that I think is very much appreciated by those returning.

One of the most invaluable experiences I have had as a member was to attend the Defence Force Parliamentary Program with the East Timor defence force during March of 2009. I spent five days in uniform in East Timor and went on foot patrol at night with ADF members of the International Stabilisation Force East Timor. It was certainly an eye-opener about some of the challenges and the circumstances. I did not have to face the occasion of being shot at, but even the living circumstances and the tasks that they needed to undertake showed that they were a force of high-calibre men and, on some occasions, women in this case.

I can say from my experience that they are doing a terrific job in sometimes difficult circumstances. The servicemen and servicewomen I spent time with will be the veterans of tomorrow. That is why I am pleased indeed to be speaking today in support of this bill, which will substantially improve the government’s delivery of entitlements to the veterans community. I feel confident that the reforms contained in this bill will be beneficial to all members of the defence and veterans communities in the future.

To the many veterans who live in my electorate of Robertson, I say: thank you for your contribution. You have made Australia a better place to live. Your contribution to the community of the Central Coast is equally notable. For that I am especially appreciative. I trust that the reforms of the Rudd Labor government introduced today will go some way to repaying the debt that our society owes you. I commend the bill to the House.

16:24:49

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, it is my honour to make this contribution in your presence, you being one of Australia’s former veterans’ affairs ministers—you did a great job and you are very highly respected in the veterans’ community. I begin by informing the House that there are more of tomorrow’s veterans in my electorate than in any other electorate in Australia. Of course the reason for that is that Townsville is the home of the ready deployment force of the Australian Defence Force. Lavarack Barracks and RAAF Townsville make up the biggest centre of gravity for defence people at the sharp end in the whole of the country. They are also the most modern Army and Air Force bases in our country. It is these people who go on deployment to the Middle East Area of Operations, to Afghanistan and to Timor Leste. It was the people from Lavarack Barracks who first went into Timor Leste when the balloon went up back in 1999—our people from the 2nd Battalion, RAR.

I well remember the evening when the troops were about to deploy. I was at Lavarack Barracks with the Prime Minister and we shared a meal with the battalion. It was a very sombre evening, because nobody knew what would happen the next day when the 2nd Battalion went to Timor. To have that kind of experience as a member of parliament is something that you never forget. It is these people who go on operations now who become tomorrow’s veterans. It is these people, having given their service to our country, to whom our country owes an obligation to give service in return. That is what this Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010 is about—in some small ways improving that particular situation.

It is not widely understood that there are areas of operations other than Afghanistan, Timor, the Solomons and the Middle East. We have people right now in the UAE. We have people in Qatar, probably. We have people in Israel, in Syria and in Lebanon serving with the United Nations. There is the MFO, which is an organisation that keeps the peace between Israel and Egypt. They are all out there—they are Australians. It is really mighty to be able to report that these Australians, working alongside the members of defence organisations from other countries, are the most highly regarded in the world. The professionalism of our ADF people, who are the future veterans of our country, is much admired by other countries. In the UN operation in Israel, Lebanon and Syria, there are 27 defence forces represented. We are head and shoulders above any other defence force in the way we operate, how careful we are, our professionalism, how we get the job done and how the people of those countries admire so much how we are trying to keep the peace in the region. It is a great story and one that I will always continue to tell, because all Australians should be mightily proud of the men and women of the ADF.

I am reminded, if I might digress for a moment, that when I was in Syria our officer there was a female major. She had extraordinary peacekeeping capabilities and she was extraordinarily well liked, but she was also the best shopper in the old souk in Damascus I have ever seen. It is just great to see that our people immerse themselves in the culture of the countries they go to.

I too have participated in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program over many years now. I have done many deployments. I did one—the parachute arrangements—with the Army, which was with ADFA. I have done Navy and Air Force deployments on a number of occasions. It is a terrific experience for a member of parliament to be able to mix with Australia’s future veterans.

I congratulate Colonel JJ Frewen, who is in the United States. JJ was the commander of the 2nd Battalion when it went into Timor Leste. He is currently a full colonel. On 12 June he will be promoted to brigadier. He really deserves that; he is a fine commander. He will be going to work for General Morrison at Victoria Barracks in Sydney. General Morrison is also a former commander of the 3rd Brigade in Townsville. General Morrison’s dad was also a general. It is all incestuous in the ADF. He is a very hard taskmaster but he knows what needs to be done and he gets the job done. It is terrific. My colleague sitting next to me, you were in Western Australia in the Army weren’t you?

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

Yes and a lot of other places over 15 years.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Western Australians in the Defence Force are quite lesser people when you compare them to the 3rd Brigade. You will have your right of reply later on. In relation to this bill, however, we do have to provide the right support for Australia’s veterans. This bill makes five changes to the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986. The changes will better align veterans’ entitlements with the Social Security Act and that is important to provide the most equitable system that we can. Firstly, the bill removes references to benevolent homes. There have been no benevolent homes since 1994 and the term is no longer used so it is time for the legislation to be updated accordingly.

Secondly, it exempts payments for expenses made under the labour market program. Under the present system, any payment for an expense incurred during part-time work experience is included in the income test. These payments may be reimbursement for items such as work, uniform or equipment that is required to complete the program. Similar social security provisions do not include such payments in the income test and the same should apply to veterans’ entitlements. It is a no-brainer. This is reflected in the bill, which will ensure veterans who are undertaking this kind of work experience are not financially disadvantaged.

Thirdly, the bill changes the requirements for a veteran’s partner in claiming a foreign pension. Under the existing law, a partner is not required to claim a foreign pension even if they are entitled to it. Again, this is different to the rules of the Social Security Act so the bill introduces uniformity in this area as veterans’ partners will now be required to claim an equivalent foreign pension where eligible. In the long run this will mean that, as a couple, they will be receiving more income and support.

Another change to this area is the way in which the payment of arrears of a foreign pension is assessed. The bill makes sure these payments are treated in the same manner as other similar pension arrears payments under the Social Security Act.

The final amendment explains the treatment of superannuation under the assets test and the income rules. Some superannuation interest is able to be disregarded. However, in some circumstances, the value of superannuation cannot be disregarded under the asset deprivation rules and will be subject to the income rules.

The coalition supports the amendments this bill makes. They are straightforward. Veterans are entitled to fair and equitable treatment and it is therefore important to standardise the treatment of pensions and benefits in Australia. A part of this is achieved by bringing veterans’ entitlements into line with the Social Security Act. I support the bill.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with other members and colleagues in supporting the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010. The government and the Australian community are justifiably proud of our ex-service men and women. The measures in this bill will go some way towards improving the wellbeing of Australian veterans and the wider ex-service community. Like most members in this place, I joined with local veterans, their families and the community to mark Anzac Day only a few weeks ago. Despite the rain and the very cold weather in Ingleburn, which was a bit unseasonable for April, I was very proud to be in attendance. In embracing the spirit of Anzac Day, it was great to see so many young people in particular taking the time to pause and reflect on the contributions that have been made by service men and women and what has been achieved on their behalf. It was great to see the number of young people attending. At Ingleburn, where we go to the dawn service, I would say that the number of young people who attend has grown considerably over the last five years. Obviously something is having an impact. It could be that the education system is educating young people more about what the contribution is or it could be that innate sense of wanting to grapple with part of our future. I think it is quite significant.

I would like to commend Don Keefe, President of the Ingleburn RSL sub-branch, and Richard Moore, its secretary, for organising the moving service which recognised and commemorated the contributions of all the veterans, particularly those who attended that day. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge that the Ingleburn RSL sub-branch received in February of this year a $4,000 contribution from the federal government to undertake an important project to honour and remember the contributions made by Australians in times of war and conflict, as part of the Saluting Their Service commemorations grants program. This $4,000 has gone to help the Ingleburn RSL sub-branch replace the gates of the Ingleburn RSL memorial park, to improve the safety and accessibility. I am advised that that government support has made it more accessible for people who want to attend the services. As we heard from previous speakers, the Saluting Their Service program is making a genuine contribution to servicemen and service organisations around the country. I am very proud to be part of the government which oversees that program.

I would also like to take this opportunity to indicate that recently, on 30 April, I attended a vigil at Hyde Park in Sydney organised by the Vietnamese community, the New South Wales chapter of the VCA. I paid my respects and marked the 35th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. This time each year holds a very special significance for Vietnamese Australians. The vigil this year marked the 35th year since the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese communists. It was a very sad moment for all Vietnamese people, especially for those who believe in liberty, freedom and democracy. The event was an opportunity for all those present to pause and honour the lives and memories of the many fine Australian and Vietnamese service men and women who had their lives tragically cut short in the Vietnam War.

Our involvement was at a cost of 521 Australian servicemen, with more than 3,000 significantly injured. Regrettably, as every member of this House would know, a number of their wounds, were they were physical or otherwise, sometimes have a chilling aspect in terms of their effects in later life. That is why a number of our veteran organisations advocate for and support those people in looking after their long-term welfare. The contribution in Vietnamese lives to that conflict was also chilling, with 1.3 million deaths. That is one of the significant reasons to recognise the contribution of Vietnamese servicemen in that conflict. I would like to pay my respects and acknowledge Thanh Nguyen, the President of the Vietnamese Community of Australia, New South Wales Chapter, and the countless volunteers for organising this highly successful vigil and for their ongoing commitment to advancing the interests of the Vietnamese community, particularly in south-western Sydney. I also acknowledge the efforts they made to acknowledge the support of the ADF for their cause when they were in need. I appreciate the significant lengths they went to in acknowledging those contributions, particularly of the 521 young Australians who gave their lives in support of that conflict.

Like other members, I participated this year—it was my fourth or fifth time—in the ADF Parliamentary Program. This year I had the opportunity to visit operations in the Middle East region. It was a 10-day deployment which had a number of MPs fly out from Sydney and land at Al Minhad airbase in the UAE. During the time there I had the opportunity to visit all areas of our joint force operations out of Al Minhad. That included being allocated to fly on a mission with the Australian Air Force in their P3 Orion. Our Air Force plays a very crucial role not simply in terms of the military operations there but also, in coordination with the Navy, being tasked to detect activities from people-smuggling off the coast of Somalia through to drug running. As you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, Afghanistan is one of the largest heroin suppliers to the world and our Air Force is playing a crucial role together with the Navy in doing something about that drug trade. When we were there we were not able to visit our Navy’s ship because they were doing a ship changeover. HMAS Parramatta is now on station and is undertaking a role in the gulf region as we speak.

I also got to see and work with the people loading the C130 Hercules aircraft. It was great to see these young men and women, and the professionalism out there was absolutely extraordinary. At Al Minhad the average temperature is about 40 degrees and you are surrounded by sand which is much finer than the sand on our beach in Bondi, so it was not the most pleasant place to be. Yet that was the staging ground for our troops as they prepared to go into other areas of operation, particularly Afghanistan. I am not sure how it is arranged, but every member of the ADF going into Afghanistan or on to other deployments must undertake a four-day military course at Al Minhad, which unfortunately means you have to kit up in full military gear, including bulletproof vests laden with all the components that go with it to make it even heavier, and spend four days out there doing various things and learning to look for things such as improvised explosive devices. These are things that, as a parliamentarian, I somewhat take for granted. I was absolutely astounded by the professionalism of all the personnel, whether in the company stores or in the Air Force organising the flying of missions or arranging the stacking of C17s with vehicles. We have people there with a great degree of professionalism and commitment and incredible determination.

As previous speakers have said, I could not have felt more deeply that the people we were working with and observing were the people who will be our veterans in the future. We owe it to them to ensure that we do everything we can to look after their long-term interests. I would very much encourage members of parliament to participate in the ADF Parliamentary Program when they get the opportunity to do so. It is an opportunity to see up close and personal what our young men and women do on our behalf. I think it is only fair that we acknowledge, whenever possible, their contributions. You cannot really say what they do is a job, but what they do is incredibly important to this country and we should at every opportunity let them know that they have and will always have our full support.

The bill before us today demonstrates the government’s commitment to the Australian veterans community and comes at a special time in Australia’s wartime history. This year marks some very significant anniversaries including the 95th anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign, the 65th anniversary of the victory in the Pacific, 50 years since the end of the Malayan Emergency and 60 years since the start of the Korean War. I understand there will be various special ceremonies throughout the year marking these occasions. I know a number of those will take place in my electorate and in many other electorates as well. I look forward to the opportunity to pay my respects at those ceremonies.

This bill introduces a number of minor technical amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This amendment bill further aligns veterans’ entitlements law with social security law and has a negligible financial impact. The changes will provide for greater certainty in the administration of veterans’ entitlements acts. It will remove redundant provisions and it will correct an anomaly whereby pensioners paid under social security law are, in some cases, receiving more favourable pension outcomes than service pensioners and income support recipients. Under the government’s provisions the veterans’ community can expect our persistent efforts to address a range of issues around veterans’ entitlements and services which go to addressing the wellbeing and certainly the recognition of our people. We are justifiably proud of our veterans and our ex-service men and women. This was demonstrated in last night’s budget.

The government is delivering on some key election promises for veterans in this budget by providing a $246.4 million package of new initiatives. Among those initiatives are commitments of providing greater access to compensation and income support; preventing unnecessary hospital admissions for members of the veterans’ community by expanding the community based health services; acting on the recommendations of the Clarke review; and one specific commitment, which has been raised on many occasions by both sides of this House, better access to health care and compensation for F111 workers. In relation to that I am referring to the cleaning of the fuel tanks of the F111 which impacted extremely seriously on the health of a number of those Air Force personnel. These budget measures clearly demonstrate that the government is serious about looking after veterans’ communities and their families.

Before I conclude I will also indicate the role that our veterans’ communities undertake in our respective areas. I would like to mention a couple of people before I conclude. Mr Ron Brown is the New South Wales branch president of the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia. Anyone in a Sydney based seat would see Ron around most weekends. I have to say that I am very fortunate that he is one of my constituents, so I get to see him more than most.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Keith Payne is another one.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. For these people, who put in extraordinary hours, it is not a matter of pay, it is not a matter of kudos; they do it because they are so passionate in their belief in looking after their colleagues. Some of the cases they have to deal with on behalf of their constituents are very, very sad. To Ron, I say not only am I very grateful for his friendship but also I am extremely grateful on behalf of the defence community in my area.

Similarly, Ken Foster of the Macarthur Veterans Information Service, despite his own ill health and hospitalisation, has been an extraordinary contributor to veterans services throughout the whole Macarthur region. There is also my good friend Max Chinn and his wife, Olive. Max is the President of the Campbelltown Veterans Recreation Centre, Dredges Cottage, where all the veterans can meet. There are various veterans associations, and this is one of those things that we do as a community.

It is always a privilege for me to be associated with anything to do with our veterans community, as I grew up in an area where we understood what these people did on our behalf and what they were able to achieve. It is extraordinary to see these old men going about their tasks these days, mainly supported by their wives, and motivated only to do well by their peers. I think we have an obligation to do anything that we can ever do to assist these people in the way they go about their business of looking after veterans. Thank you.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the member for Werriwa is still in the chamber, I would like to ask him to pass on my regards to Ron Brown. Ron and his wife come to a little place called Bingara in my electorate and have been there on a number of occasions. I have run into Ron at other national service events, in Inverell and other places. There are 300 or 400 national service people who get together at Bingara each year and have a weekend of events, and Ron is one of the people who have been very supportive of them. So please pass on my personal regards, but I would also like to recognise him and his work in this chamber.

I am particularly pleased that you, Deputy Speaker Scott, are in the chair for this debate, because I think that you were a very good Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. One of the sad things that happened with my entry into this building was that the numbers changed within the National Party, and I believe I was partly at fault for your loss of the ministry. I do apologise if I had any consequence in relation to that. I remember you as minister and I know you were very highly regarded in that role, and I think you still have a very positive influence to this day on the current minister and others who are involved in veterans affairs.

This Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010 is really about some housekeeping in terms of veterans affairs, and I guess everybody will support the legislation, as I will. But I do intend to make a second reading amendment, which the member for Kennedy will be seconding, and I do intend to have the bill returned to the main chamber, where I will call a division. I am fully aware of the consequences of the amendment—in a sense, the issue is with money bills—but I feel so strongly about the amendment that I think it needs a division in the House to gauge the feelings of the members towards what the amendment is actually addressing.

I have raised this issue over a number of years—and I think the first time was in 2002; I only came into this place in 2001—particularly in relation to Second World War veterans who did not achieve what is called qualifying service. Qualifying service essentially is serving in a theatre of war where an angry shot was fired. But they did serve their nation. Back in 2002 I used the example of my father. He has been dead a long time, but he served in the Middle East. If he had lived beyond the 1950s, he would have had qualifying service. Many other people—people in all of our electorates—joined up to defend the nation and were ordered to go either overseas or to Townsville, to Western Australia, to Singleton or to various other places within Australia not only to be trained but to be ready to be sent wherever they were ordered to go. In many cases, some of those people served for five years but did not leave Australia. As a consequence, they did not have what is called qualifying service. If they did have qualifying service, they are now entitled to the gold card. Most of those people are now well into their 80s and would not be enjoying the best of health. Obviously, they are being treated by the health system differently from those people who did have qualifying service and served overseas.

I will move this amendment. I will read it, if I may, because it encapsulates not only those people in the Second World War but people over 70. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words “while supporting the Bill—

which obviously I will be—

the House is of the opinion that the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) should be extended and that the full repatriation benefit, including the health entitlement Gold Card, to Australian veterans who are aged 70 years or over, irrespective of whether those veterans have been in danger from hostile forces of the enemy as the current legislation and proposed amendment bill demands.”

It is essentially to recognise those people who were prepared to defend the nation, to carry out the orders of their superiors and to go wherever it was demanded they go. On the example I used a moment ago, of my father being in the Middle East: if the Japanese had defeated the Australian forces in New Guinea, for instance, my father and his comrades would have been absolutely useless in defending Australia. The very people that did not go overseas and receive qualifying service—and receive health benefits now—would have been the ones that would have defended the nation they represented. They would have been in Australia. Obviously, the powers that be at the time would have been making decisions based on how many troops they needed to leave in Australia just in case the Japanese did in fact break through and come to the Australian continent.

I think it is an absolute disgrace that we have particularly Second World War veterans—and they are dying at the rate of about 800 a month at the moment—that are being treated as second-class soldiers. They are people who gave up four and five years of their lives to train to serve this nation in any capacity where they were ordered, and they are being treated differently from those who went overseas. There are many people—and I am sure we all have within our electorates examples of men in their 80s who were in their 20s then and trained as paratroopers or tank operators or whatever and received injuries just in the training processes. Now they are in their 70s and 80s, it obviously would be coming against them in their health. They deserve the recognition and the respect of this nation and should get the entitlement to additional healthcare assistance through the gold card.

As I said earlier, I recognise that this amendment relates to money, so in a sense it can be treated as an invalid amendment. I am not demanding—particularly since it is the day after the budget—that the government suddenly find additional money tomorrow for this issue, but it is important that those veterans who are still alive actually feel that respect from parliamentarians. They deserve that respect.

If we are serious about encouraging young people into the armed services to defend those of us who do not serve—and I listened to the member for Werriwa talking about our young people in Afghanistan and Iraq et cetera—we have to make sure that, if something goes wrong with them, if their health does suffer because of their service or associated with their service, they have special regard.

There can be no-one more special than someone who was prepared to die for this country in the Second World War, and yet we are still treating some of those people as second-class citizens. As I said a moment ago, Second World War veterans are dying at the rate of 800 a month. It is not an exponential cost to the nation to treat these people the same as their comrades who did serve overseas or happened to be travelling through Darwin when Darwin was bombed or happened to be in Townsville when various incidents occurred in that area. They were going where they were ordered to go. So I ask the Main Committee and the House—when the bill does get back to the House—to look seriously at this, to look past the absolute money requirements and to look into their hearts about this. This is about recognition of people who were prepared to die for us. It is something that we should look seriously at.

In concluding, I want to reflect on a recent trip that I did to South Korea with a delegation. It was amazing the recognition that remains in that nation of the Australian forces in the Korean conflict. It was very, very touching that both elderly and young Korean people, when they found out we were Australians, said thank you for what our veterans of the Korean War—in a sense, a forgotten war—did for them. We were the first cab off the rank. It was a United Nations force at the time, but Australia was there first. We were one of those nations that said, ‘Yes, we’ll defend the rights of these people to have their freedoms rather than be taken over by the North Koreans and the Chinese.’ Australians were there first. That has not left the minds of those people.

It is an incredible nation now. In a lot of ways, this history is an advantage we have over other nations in the way in which we deal with them, either diplomatically or in a trade sense. So I just pass on to the House the good wishes of many people—from the Prime Minister to the foreign minister through to people in the street—who wanted it to be conveyed to the Australian people that they remember what our forebears did for them. Those men would be over 70 now too. Those who served in Korea obviously would be in receipt of a gold card, but there would be many others who were prepared to go or would have been on the next plane or boat. They received the same training and had the same capacities but do not receive the same benefits in terms of their health care.

I would urge all members to really think about this particular amendment. Normally I do not support second reading amendments because, in a sense, they are meaningless. But this is not meaningless in relation to the way in which we have regard for these people. I think that, at the rate at which they are dying, it is about time that we showed them that we do consider them to be all the same—not as one class of soldier and another class of soldier. It has obviously been done in the past—and I am not blaming any government for this—because of the sheer numbers and the multiplication of costs. But, as they are dying out at a very rapid rate, I think the least we can do is recognise their contribution and look after their comrades who are still here to this day. I am very pleased that the member for Kennedy is going to second this motion.

Ramsey Rowen (the Deputy Speaker):

Is the motion seconded?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. My father was not a bitter person but he most certainly felt the pain of being medically discharged during the Second World War. Speaking about one of the groups that he was with in the Army, he said the irony of it was that they went to Africa, they had a wonderful trip around the world and they never saw a shot fired in anger. He said he could never go in the Anzac Day marches because he had been medically discharged. He had volunteered before the war broke out. He said he could see war coming and he thought it was everyone’s duty to volunteer.

I must also declare a personal interest: I also fit into this category. I think it behoves us to declare an interest when we have one. I also joined up, but not before the war. The war with Indonesia—the ‘konfrontasi’—had already broken out. I was 18 years of age at the time. At 17 I had never envisaged that at 18 I would be carrying a rifle and be on 24-hour call-up to go and fight in Indonesia and later in Vietnam. I was in the 49th Battalion. The average age of the 49th Battalion when they went to New Guinea was 18½ years. My father and his battalion volunteered in exactly the same way as I did. They had not envisaged that Australia would be at war with Japan. The war with Japan suddenly came upon them and, some three, four or five months later, they were up on the Kokoda Trail. One thousand men from the 49th Battalion went up there. As I said, the luck of the coin could have gone the other way, but they ended up at Kokoda and Sandananda. When they were relieved at Sandananda, only 28 of the 1,000-strong battalion were able to walk out unassisted. The majority of the battalion died on the Kokoda Trail or at Sandananda or Buna. It was simply a matter of luck. Those men had volunteered and were prepared to go. They were the unlucky ones. My generation volunteered and we were prepared to go. We were on 24-hour call-up. But we were at the lucky ones; we did not end up going.

I think the amendment moved by the member for New England is an excellent one. It takes into account the reality of men who were prepared to go to war and sacrifice their life. Through the toss of a coin, they ended up one way and not the other. In the First World War my great grandad and his brother quite literally tossed a coin. As luck would have it, my great grandad lost, and his brother went to Gallipoli—he is still at Gallipoli and he will always be at Gallipoli. So today we are talking about the toss of a coin, and that should not decide whether your country honours you or does not. You volunteered in exactly the same way. Your life was at risk in exactly the same way. You just happened to be lucky that you did not get shot at.

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

I would like to speak on the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010 without wishing to comment extensively on the amendment as I am sure that will be dealt with in due course. Earlier, the member for Herbert spoke very highly, very fondly, of the efforts of members of the 3rd Brigade of the Australian Regular Army, and at that point he made some comments about Perth and soldiers serving in Western Australia. So I would like to take the opportunity to speak a little bit about what happens over in Western Australia and my high regard for the Army Reserve’s 13th Brigade, because I think that there are aspects of this bill which will certainly impact upon the members of the 13th Brigade.

The commander of the 13th Brigade is Brigadier Stephen Cain, and under his command there is A Squadron, 10th Light Horse, a unit which has a very great tradition in the service of this nation. My understanding is that A Squadron served throughout the First World War with the Australian forces and distinguished themselves on numerous occasions. Similarly, the 11th/28th Battalion traces its heritage back to the Second World War and the First World War, and 16th Battalion also goes back to the First World War. Other units within the 13th Brigade are the 7th Field Battery, 13th Field Squadron, 109th Signals Squadron and the logistics units for the 13th Brigade.

When we talk about veterans and about our soldiers putting themselves in harm’s way, in the current environment we often find that reserves are very much part of the Australian Defence Force and very much part of the Army. Look at what the 13th Brigade from Western Australia, based at Karrakatta, have done. In recent years they have been to the Solomon Islands, serving there; they have been to East Timor; to Malaysia, as Rifle Company Butterworth; and to Bougainville. And they have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, in very much the same way that the reserve units of the Australian Army trace their heritage back to the wars that this nation has fought, they continue to serve very much on the front line; on numerous occasions they have done so in recent years and they will continue to do so in the future. So, to Brigadier Cain, and the officers and other ranks of the 13th Brigade, I extend my thanks for and my appreciation of the work they do, the work they have done in the past and the work they will do in the future for our great nation.

Also, with regard to this bill, we have recently had Anzac Day, and on Anzac Day I attended two formal ceremonies as part of my commitment to the day. Firstly, I attended the dawn service at Ballajura RSL. This has run for several years now, ever since the Ballajura War Memorial and Peace Park was built by the local community. There were private donations, but also the previous federal government was quite involved—to the tune of $155,000 in a couple of sets of grants. Each Anzac Day a very good dawn service takes place. I would like to thank the president, Mike Gilmore, and the secretary, Scottie Alcorn, for the work that they have done to make sure that the interests of veterans and the community with regard to Anzac Day are served so well, particularly at the dawn service on that day.

Later on that day the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL held a very good parade and then a very appropriate service. Rob Frencham from the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL, the RSL of which I am a member, ran that. I was also most honoured to be able to lead the parade this year, marching alongside two World War II veterans. So I again extend my appreciation to the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL for the great work they do in commemorating Anzac Day each year.

I would also like to follow up on something the member for Werriwa said. I also would like to pay my respects to another chapter related to Australian history. That was the commemoration of black April, or 30 April 1975, the fall of Saigon and the fall of the Republic of South Vietnam. We recently commemorated that fateful and dark day for the Vietnamese community in Australia. That took place, as it usually does, at the Australian Vietnam War memorial in Kings Park in Perth. I would pass on my appreciation to all members of the community but in particular the incoming and fairly new president of the Vietnamese community, Mrs Dau Thi Tran, and President of the Republic of Vietnam Veterans Association of WA, Mr Nguyen Van Thanh. I would like to thank them for the opportunity to again—I think it is my third year now—attend that service.

I will always remind the Vietnamese people that we live for the day when their homeland will be free from the oppression and the failure that is socialism and the Communist Party of Vietnam so that religious freedom and true democracy and freedom of speech can once again help the people of that nation go forward. As we know, the Vietnamese people in Australia have thrived. Their work ethic is second to none, and they are successes in every part of this country. A great success story began when they came to this country. However, that is not the case for the 88 million Vietnamese that remain in their homeland. So I say again that we live for the day when their country will be free, when their opportunities will match those of Vietnamese people who live in this country.

To conclude, I would like to say that I stand in favour of the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010, and I look forward to it passing.

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

I have been pleased to present the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010, which addresses minor but necessary measures that will remove anomalies between veterans’ entitlements law and social security law. As a result of the changes in this bill, payments associated with part-time work experience under a labour market program will be exempt under the veterans’ entitlements income test. This corrects an omission in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.

The bill makes two changes in relation to comparable foreign pensions. Firstly, the partner of a service pension or income support supplement claim recipient will be required to claim a comparable foreign pension if the partner is entitled to such a pension. The partner will be required to claim the comparable foreign pension within a time frame that will be specified in a notice. In the case of persons who are currently receiving a service pension or income support supplement, their partners, where entitled to a comparable foreign pension, will be given six months to claim the pension. The second change to comparable foreign pensions affects the treatment of arrears payments of such pensions. Instead of treating the arrears payments as income in the 12-month period from the date of grant of the comparable foreign pension, these amendments will mean that the arrears payment is treated as periodical payments for the period of the arrears. This change is expected to provide a better result in the majority of cases and closes a potential loophole in the legislation by removing the opportunity for pensioners to change to a social security pension to avoid the income test in relation to the arrears payment.

Minor amendments in the bill will repeal all references to benevolent homes from the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, as these provisions are no longer applicable. Finally, amendments will clarify the intention of the veterans’ entitlements means test in relation to disregarding the value of certain superannuation investments specified in a determination by the minister. The changes will make it clear that these superannuation investments are not disregarded for the purposes of the deemed income rules and the asset deprivation rules.

These corrections to the legislation will protect the integrity of the means test and the pension system by ensuring that specified superannuation investments are treated as originally intended and are counted as assets when calculating deemed income and will be counted as assets if the asset has been disposed of for less than adequate or no consideration.

I make mention of the fact that these are largely minor amendments. We often find ourselves in this place correcting anomalies, updating legislation to ensure it better meets the needs of those we are responsible for. The amendments that are included as part of this bill form part of that process of updating matters into the future.

I will take the opportunity to address a couple of other points that were raised in the debate. In particular, my good friend the member for Paterson raised a number of issues around broader questions, if you like, that relate to the veterans’ entitlements system and some related issues. He made some points about a press release with respect to the budget. As I understand it, he raised issues from a press release produced by a series of organisations called the Alliance of Service and Ex-service Organisations. It covers the Defence Force Welfare Organisation, the Naval Association of Australia, the RAAF Association and the Royal Australian Regiment Association. I think, though, for the public record it may be a reasonable idea to go a little bit further than the member for Paterson. The first two-thirds of the press release go to the question of congratulating and welcoming what this government has done with respect to last night’s budget. I do not want to be accused of misquoting, so I am going to quote:

… welcome the budget decisions to provide new initiatives for Australian veterans over the next four years. The key features include: access to better health care and compensation for an additional 2,400 F 111 aircraft fuel tank maintenance workers …

I will paraphrase the next dot point: ‘Compensation and benefits for Defence Force personnel who participated in British nuclear testing in the fifties and sixties at Maralinga, Emu Field and on the Montebello Islands. And further:

… reclassification of the service of certain submarine special operations personnel between 1978 and 1992 to acknowledge their contribution, recognising it as qualifying service, opening up eligibility for benefits such as the Gold Card.

Up to 890 former submariners will benefit from this change …

Improved health care for veterans and war widows and reduce unnecessary hospital stays through preventable admissions and improve the community care program.

The needs of carers have been addressed as part of the government’s broader response to the Who cares report and the national disability strategy.

It is true to say—and the member for Paterson was quite clear about this—that additional issues were raised in that press release. That was the last third of the press release, which he spoke of. Three particular issues are raised there. There is a longstanding issue around the indexation of military superannuation and an issue around the reclassification of the service of certain counterterrorism special operations undertaken by SAS personnel. Again, there is no decision to remove the remaining level of erosion to the value of veterans’ disability pensions nor to adjust them in line with the increase in community living standards since 1997.

I want to go through some of those issues, given that they were raised by the member for Paterson. On the military superannuation issue there are a number of complexities. The suggestion appears to be that the government has not done what the government said it would do when it was in opposition. At that time—and I was part of that opposition and I had responsibilities in this area of military superannuation prior to the election—two commitments were made. One was a commitment to have a review of indexation methodologies. That was the Matthews report. There is no doubt that many in the ex-service community are very unhappy with the results of that report, but the commitment from the government was to conduct a review and the government accepted the review’s recommendations. I do not expect the exservice community to be happy with that—far from it, but the commitment that was made was honoured.

The second one related to the Podger review into military superannuation. The Podger review was commissioned by the previous government and received by the previous government in July 2007. In the lead-up to the election, post that time, the government of the day refused to release that report publicly. So the Australian community, the veteran community, who were very concerned about this issue, were unable to find out what the report said. In opposition we committed to publicly release that report in order for a debate to ensue about what recommendations were included in that report. We released that report publicly in December 2007 and we committed to a consultation process with the broader ex-service and military community about the recommendations included in that report. My colleague the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, conducted that review in the first few months of 2008.

The very clear response to that review—and it was reiterated to me again by a number of ex-service organisations just several weeks ago—was that they were deeply unhappy with the recommendations included in the Podger review and they wanted government to go very slowly around the question of this and they did not want it implemented. If what the member for Paterson wants me to do is to implement a report that the ex-service community did not want and does not want, I wish he would come out and say that very clearly. But I want him to understand and I want the ex-service community to understand that, in line with their issues and their views around the Podger review, the government is very carefully considering what should happen with respect to that review.

On the issue of reclassification of the service of the certain counterterrorism and special operations undertaken by the SAS personnel, the member for Paterson needs to check his facts and the background. This came out of the Clarke review, which was a review of veterans’ entitlements undertaken by the previous government some years ago, where there were a significant number of recommendations, many of which were actually ignored by the then Howard government. But you know what? There were some recommendations that were accepted. One of the recommendations that were accepted was one that said that you should not reclassify the service of the certain counterterrorism special operations group SAS personnel. So the member for Paterson has raised a criticism about an issue on which the previous government, of which he was a member—and he is certainly still a member of the same party, last time I looked—actually accepted the recommendation from Clarke, which was not to do what he raised in the chamber today. I find that passing strange.

The third issue relates to the question of veterans’ disability pensions and the erosion of the value of those pensions. This was subject to a great deal of debate and discussion within the ex-service community and in the parliament in the lead-up to the last election. In fact, following on from a decision taken by the then Labor opposition, around the time of the 2007 budget, to put forward a proposal to index disability pensions in the veterans’ entitlements system to the male total average weekly earnings, the Howard government accepted that proposal and extended that proposal in some areas and announced it at the time of the September National RSL Congress. Legislation then went through the parliament before the election with bipartisan support. That system has been in place since, I think, March 2008. Since then, those payments have maintained their value with reference to male total average weekly earnings. There is no question about that.

Since that time we have had the Harmer review, which was a review into income support payments and led, as the chamber knows, to significant increases, particularly to single rate income support payments—many of which are received by members of the veteran community. In fact, the Harmer review resulted in a budget commitment of some $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to income support payments received by members of the wider veteran and ex-service community. But, in the context of the issue of the continuing level of erosion, once again, the key date here is ‘since 1997’. I am afraid that, for most of the time since 1997, the member for Paterson and his party were in government. The erosion occurred under the Howard government—and no-one other than them. We led the charge to address that erosion issue—and that is a fact.

The other point I would make is about the action being taken in the budget and those initiatives on which I have been congratulated by these organisations. What needs to be clearly understood there is this: the changes in relation to F111 deseal-reseal workers, which will mean that some 2,400 are eligible for support if they have become sick with an illness which can be associated with their service—which we estimate will be something in the region of almost $40 million in additional compensation and more than $12 million in healthcare support for these people who have real issues as a result of their service—came as a result of a parliamentary committee report.

The report was produced on the basis of a commitment made by the government when we were in opposition, prior to the last election. I made that commitment. I made it at Amberley. I made it at a meeting of the F111 deseal-reseal support group. The next speaker was the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, and he refused to match that commitment. The point here is that the government’s initiative from last night, which I believe is supported by the opposition, was a commitment which resulted from an inquiry which the now opposition and then government refused to support.

The initiatives regarding participants in British nuclear testing and submarine special operations personnel were again recommendations which the previous government received as part of the review by Justice Clarke and recommendations that they refused to implement. I just want to be clear that people understand that some $36 million in initiatives relating to Clarke recommendations, which the previous government refused to accept, and some $55 million in total in terms of support for F111 deseal-reseal workers, are, as far as I know, being supported by the opposition, but when they actually had the opportunity to do something about it they did nothing. That point needs to be remembered.

I will come back to the superannuation issue on that basis. Indexation in relation to superannuation is not a new issue. It has been an issue of concern for quite some time. In fact, it was an issue of concern throughout the time of the previous government. The previous government, at a time of huge surpluses, at a time when they had the capacity, sat on their hands and refused to act. Now, a couple of years into opposition, they seem to have found their voice with respect to that issue. I think the ex-service community should be very careful regarding the wording of any commitments or any suggestions or any intimations that come through from the opposition about what action they may or may not take on this issue. The fact of the matter is that they had 10 years to do something about it, they had a financial situation which would have allowed them to take action and they did not take it. That ought to be remembered.

I will close by addressing the second reading amendment moved by the member for New England. The member for New England and I have on occasions discussed this issue of the particular applications of the current test of qualifying service, how it operates and what it means for people in certain circumstances. I think he knows that I find it a vexed area. However, he also knows that I cannot agree to his amendment for a number of reasons, which I am happy to outline.

It should never be suggested—and I know that he would not suggest it—that we do not value the service of those who joined our armed services at times throughout our nation’s history, particularly when the nation was in peril. It is absolutely true that the question of where someone went, where they were posted and what they therefore faced, was very much a matter of what was required from the particular service in terms of the needs of the country at that time. However, the underlying point around qualifying service goes to the question of facing and incurring danger from hostile forces. It is a cornerstone of qualifying service and it has been, as I understand it, back to at least 1936.

It goes back to the question of, regardless of the willingness to fight, the actual impacts that people face as a result of their service and a recognition within the ex-service community, ex-service organisations and the repatriation system that the actual facing of danger has impacts with respect to your life—and, frankly, those impacts are not good. That is why traditionally there has been a situation where qualifying service provides people with additional benefits and additional assistance under the repatriation system. That has developed over time, depending on the time, to a range of different aspects. The gold card is the one that is normally raised, particularly with the decision taken some years ago for over-70s with qualifying service to be able to access that card. That is a point that has been looked at in things like the Clarke review. Although Clarke recommended some changes to the incurred danger test, the bottom line is that he did support qualifying service as an ongoing concept to be maintained.

The situation for those who served in Australia is that it depends on where they served and when they served. There are inconsistencies, in my view, around aspects of this. If you served in Northern Australia in certain latitudes at certain times, particularly around the bombings of Darwin, the situation is that that was considered to be qualifying service. If you travelled in coastal waters at times when there was a fear of enemy action, of submarine attack et cetera, again there was allowance for qualifying service. Essentially, that underlying test is seen as being a very important part of the overall repatriation system. It is a test that this government maintains is correct. It is a test that the previous government held to. It is a test that all governments have held to over the years we have had this system in place.

That is not in any way to cast any aspersions about the courage, the bravery and the willingness to serve their country of those who are in a situation where they are denied that access. It goes to the question of the circumstances they faced in their service and the nature of that very important principle of qualifying service. It is also a test which is supported overwhelmingly in the ex-service community in terms of ex-service organisations like the RSL because of that recognition of the circumstances people face if they are facing an armed enemy. I would like to leave it on that point. Although the amendments in this bill are minor, they are part of a continuing adjustment of the system to ensure it maintains the support required for those we represent and who deserve so much. I commend the bill to the House.

Ramsey Rowen (the Deputy Speaker):

The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for New England has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

Question unresolved.

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

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.