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

The Democrats support the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008 and the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I want to make a few comments on the content of it and some broader issues. Senator Minchin in his contribution mentioned the stance the coalition took in the House of Representatives in seeking to get the government to consider modifying the bill. I appreciate the reasons he gave for the coalition not pursuing that via an amendment here. Obviously, if they had it would have passed, because they have the numbers here. But these matters are always matters for judgement, and I certainly recognise that the desire to just get the scheme up and running by 1 July is a valid one. Some of the differing views about how it could perhaps be finessed further can be considered as part of the review of the scheme down the track. The issue that Senator Minchin mentioned that the coalition was pursuing is about whether or not it could be ensured there would be automatic eligibility for the surviving partner of a Defence Force person who died in warlike service to have access to the maximum subsidised loan entitlement.

I want to note the views of the Injured Service Persons Association, who wrote to me—I think they would have written to all the ministerial and shadow ministerial spokespersons on this issue. They spoke about their support for this broader issue but also raised an issue of ongoing concern for that association—that there is different treatment depending on whether or not a spouse survives a person killed in warlike situations or other situations. They make the point about the desirability of ensuring that eligibility criteria are such that support is made available to surviving spouses not just for warlike service but also for peacemaking services and service declared as hazardous. I know that is a view that is not universal by any means amongst defence personnel, veterans and ex-service organisations; that is an ongoing debate. But in my view there should be wider recognition, whether people are injured or killed, beyond those in warlike service. People who join the defence services do not have a lot of say about where they are deployed. You can be in extremely hazardous situations just training for military action or military service. Regardless of whether or not you end up in a warlike zone or warlike service, you are still at risk—you are at risk of severe injury, you are at risk of being killed. In those circumstances, it is my personal view that, when that injury or fatal incident occurs, trying to create a distinction between warlike service and other types of service is not reasonable, at least in regard to entitlements for surviving spouses and families.

Given that this is probably the final time I will speak on defence personnel and veterans related legislation as a member of the Senate, I would like to note all of the work of the range of ex-service organisations. I have particular admiration for the work of the Injured Service Persons Association in trying to get the often neglected views of their members and people in those circumstances given greater consideration. I hope in the review of this scheme their views are given wider consideration by the government and by all the people engaged with this issue.

It would be remiss of me not to note that with both this legislation and indeed the previous legislation that was debated half an hour or so ago, the veterans entitlements legislation, there is the continuing issue of discrimination against people whose partner is of the same sex. We had a reasonable amount of debate on the issue of same-sex couples in this chamber earlier this week, and I know the government has put on the record its intention to bring forward wide-ranging legislation in response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report on discrimination against same-sex couples. So, whilst many times in the past I, and other Democrat senators, have moved amendments to address what I believe is an ongoing injustice, I will not do so on this occasion. We have rarely been successful with those amendments but, given the nature of commitments about legislation to be introduced soon, and given that we have already canvassed the issue on a broader scale in debate in this chamber earlier this week, I will not push it by way of formal amendments. But I would simply make this point and remind senators and others in the community that this discrimination reaches into a huge range of Commonwealth law and a huge range of entitlements that are denied to people purely on the basis of the gender of their partner if they are in a same-sex relationship. When you are particularly talking about a measure that is aimed at creating greater incentive for retention of personnel in the defence forces, such discrimination really does not make much sense. It undermines the intent of measures like this.

It is very important that we look for ways to improve retention—and indeed recruitment in the first place—of people in the defence forces, and if you have a group of Australians who are discriminated against, purely on the basis of their sexuality or on the basis that their partner is of the same sex, then you undermine the goal of retention. I think from that point of view alone, let alone the issue of basic justice and fairness, it makes sense to remove this discrimination. This is a new scheme, as Senator Minchin has pointed out, so I think it would have been quite appropriate to have ensured that as this new scheme operated discrimination did not occur. This is particularly so when you are talking about a situation where a surviving spouse may have eligibility for ongoing entitlements, given that you are talking about a circumstance where a person’s partner gets killed in the service of country, which is obviously enormously traumatic. That is traumatic for everybody and particularly so for the family. That is particularly traumatic for the spouse. So it is equally important that one group of spouses get not just the subsidy but also the recognition. It is not simply a matter of another group of people wanting access to the subsidy; it is a matter of their having recognition of the validity of their relationship at a time when that relationship has ended in the most traumatic way. So it is a real imperative that this discrimination be removed as soon as possible, and I do urge the government to move on that.

The only other comment I would make is on the wider issue of access to housing. My understanding of one of the reasons behind this new measure being brought in, given that the nature of assistance provided to defence personnel with regard to housing is being updated, is the changing nature of the housing market and indeed the creation of problems to do with housing affordability as well as some of the specific issues that apply to people in the Australian Defence Force. I do not want to go into the whole issue of housing affordability more broadly, but I would say that as a general principle these days I do not support, and the Australian Democrats do not support, interest subsidies as a way of enabling people to afford a home. But the context of this measure is as much about an incentive to improve retention because, as I understand it, the scheme increases in value and the incentive improves the longer people remain in active service, so they get progressively higher levels of benefits after extra years of service. I think the higher levels come into effect at the eight-year and 10-year marks for permanent members of the Defence Force and 12-year and 16-year marks for people in the reserves.

Clearly, given those circumstances, you have a mechanism that provides a real incentive for people to stay in the Defence Force—and that is a real issue. In that context I think it is valid to provide a mechanism like this, but I do want to put on the record that that does not mean that I or the Democrats think that it is a good general policy to deal with the difficulty of affording a home by subsidising home interest rates or the interest payments of home buyers. I think that would be immensely inflationary, with a further distortion of the market. It would cost a lot of money and would be economically irresponsible and non-conservative. Therefore I certainly do not think that sort of measure should be applied, although I know the government has not signalled any intention to do so.

We do support the legislation and we do welcome in particular the intent of it. I have spoken a number of times in this place about the importance of working harder on the retention of defence personnel. This is one of the ways of doing it. Another is ensuring, when they do get harmed, injured or wounded, that they are given the best treatment possible. I think we have had improvements in that area as well in recent years but we do have some way to go, so I urge that those efforts to improve performance in that area continue.