Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to continue where Senator Bartlett left off. But, before commencing my contribution to the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified Superannuation) Bill 2006, as a member of the Senate Economics Committee I would like to place on record my thanks to all the secretariat staff and those who contributed to our inquiry. As is often the case with many Senate committees, but particularly the Economics Committee these days, we have a particularly congested time line within which we are to consult with the affected public on potential legislation and then report to the chamber, because the government seems to be in a great hurry to get some of its legislation through. Sometimes we are inquiring into legislation that, when the inquiry commences, the opposition has not really even seen. We have often only seen the title. I place on record my thanks to the secretariat and other staff, and those who submitted to our inquiry on legislation that it took a while for us to see.

Senator Bartlett raises some legitimate points. My colleague Senator Sherry has expanded on the opposition’s general concerns about the costings of this package. The specific concerns that I want to focus on are those that affect our former military personnel and particularly our veterans. Senator Bartlett has outlined the committee’s unanimous recommendation—recommendation No. 4. The committee was moved by the witnesses who were retired from the Defence Force. I particularly want to place on record my thanks to Mr Colin Wade from Mandurah in Western Australia, who is retired from the Defence Force. He gave extended and distinguished service to the Australian Defence Force and retired on the grounds of ill health. Some of the things he endured while in the Defence Force have obviously severely impacted on his day-to-day living. Government policy does not really take into account the impact that it has on people like Mr Wade and his colleagues within the Defence Force.

It seems to me that a good public policy principle would be to look at these people as a separate category. It is, after all, the government of the day, no matter what its political persuasion, that decides to put these people in harm’s way. Therefore, we have a great duty of care to look after those veterans at the end of that service and to recognise the particular physical and psychological impacts that service has had not just on them but on their families. I do not think anyone on the committee failed to be moved by Mr Wade and his evidence. It took an incredible amount of courage and bravery for him to travel across the country. He had to bring support with him to appear before the Senate committee. Interstate travel is something that we in this chamber may take for granted as pretty easy, relaxed and informal. But it is not always that way, particularly if you have suffered severe impacts on your health. It can be a pretty traumatic experience, and it is always a traumatic experience to expose your personal life and history to a roomful of strangers and on the public record. So it is worth acknowledging him and thanking him for taking the trouble to do that, thus allowing the committee to consider the wider implications of legislation like this.

When members of the committee quizzed departmental officials about the impact of this legislation and with whom they had consulted, we were told that they had consulted with ComSuper on the subject of people receiving Commonwealth superannuation and that that was about it—ComSuper are the peak body. I do not in any way want to belittle the contribution that any public servant makes or any of the people who work for ComSuper, but these veterans, these people who have served in our Defence Force, are in a different category. Yes, their superannuation is looked after by ComSuper, but they have a unique set of circumstances. It would not seem unreasonable that the department actually go and consult separately with their representative body rather than just the peak organisation that serves to look after everyone who receives a ComSuper benefit. After all, those veterans, those retired Defence Force personnel, would comprise a very small percentage of the overall ComSuper membership, but they do have unique circumstances. There are not that many other ComSuper beneficiaries that governments of the day can choose to put in harm’s way. Our veterans often suffer long-term physical and psychological consequences from the policies of the government of the day.

When considering legislation like this it is important that we look at the impact in its totality on the entire membership and composition of the membership of ComSuper rather than opt for the standard consultation with the peak organisation. The concerns they would have raised would have reflected the circumstances of a significant proportion of their membership. For the committee members, it was only through meeting with Mr Wade and some of the other witnesses who appeared that we came to understand some of the other implications and impacts of this legislation, and some of the potential solutions that there are to the concerns of these people. I believe that next time we need to hasten a bit more slowly—get the consultation right and look at all the impacts rather than the impact on the vast majority, and every now and then concede that there may be some special circumstances and some people who have had very traumatic lives and deserve special consideration.