Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Hansard source

I need to respond to that because a question mark has been raised about whether or not we will be going back into Iraq and I think it would be handy if we got some clarification of this issue. Potentially that means there will be more of our soldiers going overseas and ultimately more people in receipt of veterans pensions. As I go around the countryside to Launceston, to Coffs Harbour, to Ingleburn, veterans say to me, 'The government is increasing this levy on high-income earners. It is a temporary change. It is for a couple of years while they raise a certain amount of money. You say it is going to be $3.1 billion. There are some question marks about that and it might not even be that much. But the changes you are going to make to veterans, to the people who have put their lives on the line, are not going to be temporary. Those changes a permanent reduction in the increases they will receive in their pensions.' At estimates I asked Mr Lewis how much this is going to be in the first eight or nine months and it is $46 million. So $46 million is going to be taken out of the pockets of Australian veterans, money which should have gone to them by way of the fair indexation system. Veterans say to me, 'You're raising the money on high-income earners on a temporary basis, but the changes you're making to our pensions to pay for your so-called 'budget crisis' are permanent. You're going to permanently reduce the way in which pensions in this country will be received. Explain that to us. Why are the rich making only a temporary contribution to the so-called budget crisis and pensioners, who have gone off to war to fight for this country, are making a permanent change?' I do not think there is a satisfactory answer to that. I could not think of one. The minister, who has been at most of these functions with me, certainly did not come up with one and I have not seen anything from Mr Abbott or Mr Hockey or from any of the other people who are defending this budget to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why veteran pensioners are carrying the can for these changes. If there were a real budget crisis, why are the rich not making an ongoing contribution to the cost of solving the crisis? Why do they get off scot free after a couple of years? Of course, Senator Dastyari and Senator Stephens talked about the potential for avoidance of this levy.

Let me tell you what the veterans of this country are saying. They are saying: 'There's no way we're going to be avoiding this reduction in the increase of our pension. That'll be coming right off the top; there'll be no way we'll be avoiding that.' As I said, in nine out of 10 cases that will be a lower increase than they otherwise would have expected.

I notice Senator Bushby coming back into the chamber. He certainly did not address this when he mentioned pensions in his contribution. There is no satisfactory answer to this, and I think it simply reflects the issue which people—and not just veterans and pensioners—are now talking about in this country. Broadly in the community they are saying: 'This budget is not fair.' As I say, I do not accept the proposition that we are in a budget crisis here, but, even if you do accept that proposition, the fair way to solve that is not to make life more difficult for the people who need most help in this country. And I categorise veterans and veterans on pensions as people who do need help in this community. We should be looking after them because of the service that they have given us, and we are not. We are not looking after these people, and there has been no satisfactory explanation as to why we are not.

Let us be quite frank about this. I cannot be sure what the position is that the opposition will take on this issue after I leave in a couple of weeks' time.