Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak briefly on the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 on behalf of the Democrats. It is always appropriate when there are positive measures in a budget to acknowledge those and to note and praise them, lest one be accused of being churlish and always focusing on the negative. There are positive measures in this. Nonetheless, one has to make the point that there are inadequacies, not only because of those who merit help but are not covered in this legislation and the budget more broadly but also because of the way some of these measures are put forward.

Firstly, I will start by noting some of the measures I think should be acknowledged as clear-cut positives. I want to focus particularly on the veterans affairs aspects of this legislation. The increase in the maximum amount of funeral benefit payable from $1,000 to $2,000 is a welcome and important increase. As always, people can argue that there should be more, and I think that case can continue to be put, but it is a significant rise which has been pushed for for some time. The fact that the government has listened to that concern is, to a fair degree, something that should be acknowledged.

Similarly, increasing the maximum period for the backdating of war widow or widower pension claims to six months from the existing three months is also welcome and important. It is no surprise that, in the event of the death of a partner, it often takes people more than three months to get around to sorting out what their eligibility might be and putting in their claims and those sorts of things, and extending the period of backdating to six months is a welcome measure. Again, it is a measure that is there because of the advocacy of a number of ex-service organisations, in particular the War Widows Association. It is an appropriate opportunity to pay tribute to the work of organisations like that. They do an enormous amount of work in trying to pass on and give voice to the concerns of the people they represent and continually push people in the parliamentary and political process to be aware of and act on those concerns. So it is not just a tick for the government that this measure is here but also a tick in recognition of the work that advocacy organisations do generally—in this case, the War Widows Association and ex-service organisations.

I have made the point repeatedly in this place that it is important that we do as well as we possibly can in looking after the needs of veterans and, I might add, other ex-service personnel. There is an ongoing debate. Indeed, there are more measures in this year’s budget to try to address the recruitment and retention goals of the Australian Defence Force. Most of those I am supportive of. But I think it is an undeniable fact that, unless we can do better in the way we treat people who join the ADF, particularly those people who run into difficulty—the people who suffer injuries, who are wounded in service or who have other harm come to them as a consequence of their service—we will never meet our recruitment and retention targets. All their comrades around them and, even more so, their families see the way they are dealt with and the harm done to them and spread the word that maybe the ADF is not the way to go. In many cases, those who are in there see how one of their comrades is treated, and that gives them a much greater incentive to get out in case the same thing happens to them. It is always crucial that we do better in that regard. It is the easiest thing in the world for politicians to wave the flag and talk up the proud sacrifice of our Defence personnel, because politicians are not the ones making the sacrifice and, in most cases, neither are their children. But it is another thing entirely to ensure that we meet the grade and demonstrate the commitment behind the easy words by following up those who need assistance.

One other area in this budget and in this legislation is an increase in the amount of the intermediate rate disability payment, paid under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, of $25 a fortnight or $50 a fortnight for the special rate disability pension. This is what is broadly called the TPI rate. That has been a key area of contention in the veterans community for a long time. They have presented a very plausible case that the real value of this payment has declined over time because it is not indexed. That was partly, but only partly, addressed by the federal government some years back when they indexed just part of this payment. The other part has continued to remain unindexed and its value has continued to decline over time. So this is a catch-up payment. That should be welcomed but it should not be overly praised as something that is particularly noteworthy. To be finally badgered into making a catch-up payment that does not even catch up all the way is, frankly, not really something that deserves heaps of praise; it deserves acknowledgement but not heaps of praise. On top of that, it just maintains the ongoing problem. It is a one-off catch-up payment that catches up part of the way, and that is good, but it is not indexed; the rate will not be maintained at that level. So the problem will return again over time, and the concern will continue. At a time like this, with surpluses of this size, why on earth this less than full catch-up payment could not maintain its value and be indexed is beyond me. It seems to me to unnecessarily continue a concern and needs to be addressed.

It is a part of the problem with a number of the other measures, including some of the broader measures for carers and others. Of course, the extra support for carers is welcome. One-off payments have benefit, but they are one off. They are intermittent and cannot be planned for or relied upon. They are not structurally built into the system, so carers, in particular, and veterans and ex-service personnel will still have structural disadvantage that is built into the system. They will have to rely on hoping that budget largesse will appear again next year or every three years just before an election, and that is not satisfactory.

The Democrats make the same point with regard to the tax cuts that have been given. It is welcome that this year’s tax cuts have been focused mainly on lower income earners, but they are one-off tax cuts which are predominantly returning bracket creep. What we need to see is structural reform that will lock in those gains for low-income earners over time, rather than leaving them hoping that they will be the beneficiaries of budget largesse next time around. It is the easiest thing in the world for governments to hand back money that they have gained basically through the operation of inflation and bracket creep. If we had some vision here, we would be locking in the tax breaks or the tax changes via indexation—even partial indexation if you want to maintain some budgetary flexibility—so that they maintain their value year after year. That is the sort of change the Democrats have been pushing for for a long time and that is what we would like to see.

The same point applies to these payments for veterans. The catch-up payment is welcome, but how about we lock in indexation all the time on the entire payment so that it maintains its value consistently over time? That is what we should do. I think you could make the same claims with some of the other measures that are in here as well—certainly the funeral payment amount. Why can that not be indexed to CPI? Why do we have to lock it in and let it lose its value over time, and then make people put a lot of effort into campaigning to get it to retain or return its value, after which governments expect a shower of confetti and streamers and a tickertape parade when they finally give back something that they should have put in place in the first place? That applies in a whole range of areas, not just in the ones in the bill. That is the difference between the one-off, instant, quick fix, big bang budget measures and visionary structural improvements and reforms. We need to see more of the second.

This is a criticism not just of the current government—I am trying to be balanced once again; it is something that applies pretty much across the board with budgets at all levels and to all parties these days. It seems to be driven and almost reinforced by the way the public engages with budgets and by the way the media reports on budgets. It seems to always be an instant gratification engagement—one of looking for all the lollies, the cookies and the sparkly bits. If you lock things in so that they are there in a structural form continually, then there are no sparkly bits for next year. With the attention span of the entire community, I guess, and the way a lot of media reporting goes, memories do not last that long. People are not going to remember and say, ‘Well that was a good thing they did last year and I’m still grateful for it this year.’ Who remembers all the good things from last year’s budget?

Everything is being looked at in isolation, in this election year in particular. No doubt we will see that repeated for whatever is in this budget we are talking about now. It will be completely forgotten. Whatever good is put forward in all the pre-election, post-budget spending measures will again be looked at in isolation and as a self-contained box, ignoring what has already been done, including the good things that have already been done in this budget. We are just doing the same thing over and over again. It is reinforcing what I see as a big problem, which is that not enough of the improvements that do deserve congratulations are put in place in a structural, ongoing sense. They are put in place in a one-off handout sense. That is a real problem and it is something we need to look at more broadly in the way each of us approaches budgets, government expenditure, the tax system, welfare payments and all of those sorts of things.

Returning to the specifics of the bill, I have focused on the veterans area because I think veterans do need to be acknowledged as often as possible. But I would also like to note the payments to carers and older Australians. If there is one group in the community who you could rain down largesse upon in great amounts almost continuously and not get many complaints from me, it would be carers. They have an enormous responsibility and an enormous task that is not, and in some ways can never be, fully recompensed. Any form of extra assistance with money and the costs of their role is always welcome. The bill does not address some of the structural issues and, both with this and with the veterans area, it is of course about more than money. Those other aspects are areas where we still need to monitor the adequacy of service delivery, whether it is for carers or for veterans.

I would note and reinforce the comments made in the other place by the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, Mr Griffin—I think, earlier today—about the veterans’ affairs area, including the increase in the amount of time it is taking for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to process claims and the concerns about the decline in overall staffing numbers. Those are the other sorts of things that go beyond payment rates but can often make as big a difference or a bigger difference to people in terms of quality of life and assistance with their needs. Whether it is processing time for the claims, ease of assistance when they need support, being directed to the services that actually meet their needs, or other sorts of support services that are available to carers such as respite services and other sorts of services and assistance, we certainly still have a way to go in those areas. We need to continue to focus on those as well.

One-off payments always help, but they do not deal with some of those wider structural problems—whether it is amounts of money or adequacy of service. It is the Democrats’ role to ensure the Senate can operate in a way that keeps the focus on those issues. We seek to pull out more of the facts on those issues and we will certainly continue to do all we can to maintain that role.