Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a different note, I want to confirm, as I have said in private discussions with the minister, that the coalition won't oppose this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024. We have some experience on this side of the House in dealing with the consequences of the High Court decision in Douglas, which were far reaching for veterans in a social services way and in a tax and myriad other financial ways. The former government and now the current government are seeking, through this bill, to address the issues that emanated from a different interpretation from the High Court in the Douglas decision. So, in that spirit of understanding, we won't stand in the way of the bill, but we will seek further assurances that there are no unintended consequences resulting from this bill, the unintended consequences essentially being any negative consequences for our veterans community.

There's a little under a thousand people, we're assured by the government, who are likely to be impacted by these changes. They are essentially changes to the treatment of the assets test and the way in which the payments, which were the subject of the Douglas decision, are now treated. There are no adverse consequences for that cohort of just under a thousand people. Again, the government's given us an assurance—and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity—in seeking to ensure that those people who have served our country, as the former prime minister in his valedictory speech just said, who sacrificed to much to defend the freedom of our nation, are not in any way worse off as a result of these changes. We will seek to have this bill in the Senate go to a committee because, I must say, there have been some requests to us from the veterans community on a couple of issues to ensure that, as is promised, there are no negative consequences.

We've sought assurances and advice on these matters from those veterans as well, and there does seem to be some uncertainty, which would benefit from this bill going to a committee and being examined in more detail. I appreciate the haste with which the government wants to legislate these changes, but I think that, for the veterans community's sake, we should really run the ruler over this closely, again not because I doubt the sincerity of the government but because this is a notoriously complex area and we shouldn't in any way, shape or form, for the sake of haste, progress this bill with any conceivable risk of veterans being worse off.

Some of the concerns from stakeholders have been that clarification is needed on whether these amendments in the bill will exclude military disability pension income streams from asset assessments with regard to myriad family law matters. I won't go through all matters individually, but it's fair to say that a number of those concerns have been grouped with those who have financial orders and others in relation to family law matters. We also believe clarification is required on how the bill will affect the eligibility for family tax benefits, childcare subsidies or the low-income healthcare card.

We believe that, ultimately, in the absence of the government having reached out to those groups and clarified precisely what the consequences would be, it should go to a committee. That will ultimately be a decision for the other place, but that is my preference, and the basis upon which we will be supporting this bill in the House is making sure we get those absolute assurances, because we do not want a situation where the government declares with certainty, as they have to me and as they have publicly, that no-one will be worse off. Indeed, the minister in the second reading speech gave a very clear indication that not only was the purpose to ensure that no veteran was worse off but that, in fact, no veteran would be worse off in practice, so it was concerning for me that a couple of the welfare organisations still had these questions, which also indicated a lack of consultation with the government in relation to them. If I may provide any advice to the minister, it's that, in treading in this space, you are well advised to consult very closely with veterans, because they understand their personal circumstances better than anybody. That is certainly the approach I took as a minister in the former government with regard to taxation matters that resulted from the Douglas decision.

I won't detain the House on what I hope ultimately becomes a fairly uncontroversial bill to clean up understanding of the law in light of a High Court interpretation, but I reiterate to veterans that we are supporting this bill on the basis that there are no adverse consequences for any veteran. We've had those assurances from the government. We're concerned that the government hasn't necessarily assuaged the fears of veterans' organisations who've raised the matters that I've just outlined, so in that spirit we look forward to the government providing those assurances. And we think that going to a committee to briefly look at this to give comfort to veterans, who deserve that comfort, that they won't be worse off as a result of these changes is important, and that's the basis upon which we will be supporting this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.