Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs as a result of a number of concerns that were raised. In particular, those concerns looked at the area of child support. However, when we publicised the committee, what became clearly evident was that there were concerns in the community about schedule 2. We have heard from the people who have already spoken in this debate that it has been schedule 2 that has raised the major focus of the community affairs committee and we have heard the subsequent response from the government.

Again, we have seen the value of the community affairs system and, in fact, the value of the whole committee system in the Senate because what we saw in the discussion around this legislation was this: something was referred to us and a number of key points were particularly looked at and itemised. We looked at minor changes around the immunisation allowance, which seems to have been accepted well, and we refocused the need for families across the board to be taking up the issue of immunisation, and to be doing it and maintaining their process through that activity. That means that the budget changes that came in reflect that and ensure that the payment is made in two parts so that we ensure that families are taking forward the full impact of immunisation. We did not receive any submissions to that element of the legislation in our committee.

The second element was the ongoing concern about changes to child support. Again, there were a number of submissions that came to the community affairs committee, raising ongoing concerns about the impact of the child support arrangements: how the process is continuing to cause concern amongst the community, and how the legislation process needs to continue to adapt to ensure that the full support of the child support focus is on the children and that people across the board are aware of their arrangements.

The individual changes in this legislation have been talked through and we had submissions on those. There was support mainly for the budget changes but there continues to be real concern about the legislation itself, its impact and the process of implementation, particularly of the Child Support Scheme. Every time we have discussions around the whole area of child support, when it is linked to legislation people come forward and raise concerns. The message from this process is that this area needs to continue to be carefully scrutinised. The Child Support Agency, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and Centrelink continue to work with people to ensure that they are aware of their entitlements, and clearly people are working with the legislation.

However, as I said, during the committee process on this legislation there was a great deal of discussion around schedule 2, which deals with the changes brought in through the partner’s payment in the DVA process. Out of that discussion we received a number of submissions that referred to the impact of the proposed changes. Again, the clear message that came through was that there needs to be open communication and understanding of entitlement. Again, we had people whose fears were raised—in many ways, unnecessarily—about the impact of this legislation. Through the committee process we were able to investigate the legislation that was before us, which allowed a process to then occur of interaction between those who had raised concerns and the department. We see the result of that in a range of amendments that are before the chamber today, which have been directly brought forward by a need to address concerns that were raised.

We have, as Senator Siewert said, a period of social change. I take her point that, over a long period, the process of public policy in this country has been to ensure that individuals are assessed in their own right for entitlement and that pure dependency is not enough to have an entitlement.

Through the budget process we have tried to align the entitlement age for payment of partner pension under the DVA processes with the wider, accepted processes that have already taken place in other parts of the community. This has caused some concern. During the community affairs committee inquiry, particular concerns were raised by people who had been living with a veteran and who were now in the process of separating as to whether they should continue to receive the partner payment for life. The government’s position is that that is not an entitlement and that people’s individual circumstances should be assessed.

During the committee process we heard that there was deep concern about the reason for separation. We had considerable discussion with the department, with the RSL and also with the organisation which supports partners who are working with veterans about the difficulties of living with people who have significant injuries, not just physical injuries, caused by their service. Most importantly, there was considerable evidence about people who had psychiatric conditions that were caused by or could be linked to their service for our country. Through the committee process we heard about particular concerns that led, in many cases, to years of caring for partners, about relationships that were dangerous, about people who had suffered by being in those relationships and that sometimes the reason for separation could be directly attributable to the condition of the ex-service person. Whilst we are currently looking at changes in our service personnel, through consideration of the legislation before us we were talking about women who were partners of service personnel. Concerns were raised in the evidence that women were forced into terminating relationships by the unsafe nature of their relationship with the ex-service partner.

There was much discussion during the committee hearings about the provisions for illness separation that currently exist under the act. There was discussion during the community affairs committee hearings of whether those processes could be applied more widely than they are currently applied by the department. Following the department’s responses, which, in many cases have been taken up, we now have a greater understanding that there needs to be a response to situations where partnerships have been terminated because of illness, violence or insecurity within a relationship.

There was discussion during the community affairs committee inquiry about proposed amendments, which are before us today. One amendment deals with the proposal that spouses who separate from a veteran who has an accepted psychological and mental health condition will be exempt from the measure, if the spouse and veteran are living separately and apart and if there are indications of an unsafe environment for the partner and/or children of that relationship. That particular acknowledgement responds directly to some of the concerns raised at the inquiry. We understand that, if the relationship has been terminated for that reason, there should be consideration for maintenance of the partner’s payment. We believe that we need to be very clear with how that would be worked through. This gets back to the interrelationship between the department which is making the assessment and also the community members who are coming forward with this rationale. It is particularly important in that case that there is strong confidence that those situations will be understood and that the response will have a sensitivity to and an acknowledgement of the work and the situation in which the partners have found themselves. The point was also raised by a number of people around the committee process that, once a decision has been made about the process, there needs to be more time taken in terms of a transition payment. That has been taken up by the amendments that are before us.

During the committee process we were certainly impressed by the efforts that the department had already made to interact with the people who had already been identified as potentially being impacted by these legislative changes. We had acknowledged that the department had a special point of communication so that anyone who would be caught up in this process would have one area to contact, an area that was already trained and knowledgeable in this area and that would be able to respond directly to the concerns raised by people who, sometimes, are unsure of their future, unsure of their options and are ill at ease in dealing with the department’s situation.

It was consistently stressed by people giving evidence that the special relationship between the department and the people who are already being serviced through DVA is one that must be understood and completely and totally effectively resourced. It was raised on a number of occasions that there was going to be the need for more interaction between people in the department and the community. It was raised that we needed to ensure that the department was resourced effectively to maintain personal contact so that, again, people’s circumstances could be assessed individually and sensitively and so that they could feel as though they had confidence in their options.

It is important that people are able to make a claim for their own circumstances without having any sense that there is undue judgement or undue pressure involved in the process. What we have in the legislation before us is an indication of the entitlement for a partner pension. We need an understanding that there is a partnership. If there is no existing partnership, only in some special circumstances should there be payment for partnership. That brings this legislation in line with the intent of the process.

We acknowledge that there needs to be an open communication network to ensure that people are supported through this process. We have acknowledged by changing the date of implementation that there needs to be further delay so that people have more time to get their own situation clearly understood. There is an important element of equity in how public policy should be implemented. We need to respond to people’s circumstances individually but make sure that they are eligible because of the circumstances in which they find themselves.

This legislation has given the department the opportunity to look again at a number of the cases that have come before us. One of the things that disturbed me in the evidence that the committee heard was that the department had made the effort to write to the 580 women who would be affected by the proposed changes but, by the time the committee reported, there had not been responses from a large number of those people. There had been no contact from people who had had personal communication from the department explaining this process. That had not led to a response from those people asking for an explanation or some further information about how they would be impacted. The department had put in place a process, working with both Centrelink and DVA, to be ready to respond personally to those people who could be impacted. My concern was that a large number of those people, at the time this legislation was being considered, had not taken up the opportunity to have that discussion.

It is important that people understand their entitlements. It is important that they take the opportunity to interact effectively with the department to find out how they may be impacted. Only then will they be clear about exactly how this legislation could impact on them. That will also give them an awareness of the options, a look at what alternatives are available. If information is only available through newspaper coverage or through people talking, it is often the case that the messages are mixed and the true information is not put out there.

We have the legislation before us. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs looked at the legislation, and I think that a number of amendments have been proposed. As a result of that, we think that this particular piece of legislation effectively looks at genuine entitlement and also encourages sensitivity in how we work with people to ensure that they can use the system most effectively for their own entitlement.