Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the government’s amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 517, moved by Senator McLucas, be agreed to.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder if I could assist the committee. In response to a question that Senator Scullion asked just before question time today, in our haste to assist him I do not think I was absolutely clear. The question that Senator Scullion asked—I am quoting from the Hansardwas: ‘How many people will not actually be caught by the exemptions? In other words, how many people do you think will still now move to Newstart?’

That is a difficult question to answer absolutely accurately. By way of answering, can I say that up to 580 separated partners are potentially affected, and 390 veterans in those partnerships have an accepted psychological or mental condition. A number of them will qualify for illness-separated status. You would be aware that the department contacted each of those 580 people. Sixty individuals who responded to the letter and who rang the special team in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs indicated that they would seek illness-separated status. We know that there will be some overlap with the 390 people. Can I also say that a third of the 580 people are not receiving the maximum rate of partner service pension, and a number may have the capacity to increase their working hours.

Of the 580 people who were contacted by the department in September, over 400 have not contacted the department following the notification of the changes in September. That is hopefully by way of explanation, but I have got to say, Senator Scullion, that it is actually quite difficult to answer the question accurately. Also, you asked how many people will move to Newstart. People who move payment will not all move to Newstart. They could potentially move to the disability support pension or the wife allowance, or there are a number of other payment regimes that they could go to. It is misleading, I think, to say that they would just go onto Newstart. I hope that is of some assistance in answering the question.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for the answer, and I do accept the difficulty because of the overlap. I acknowledge that that is a difficult question to answer. I am simply looking at the demographic. The fundamental question for which I am really after an answer—and I think people will be interested—is: how many veterans will be worse off? Whilst we have got a rough number—I suppose around 200 out of that demographic—it is difficult to know and I acknowledge that. There are a number of other questions. I will try to keep this as short as possible, because I know that time is very tight. Given the tightening financial circumstances that all Australians are facing—not much comes from your side and potentially from ours that is not prefaced by the difficult economic times that we are in—clearly veterans would be feeling the pinch. Obviously, in consideration of making this sort of change, you would have done some sort of modelling to have a look at the socioeconomic impact on this demographic. Could you share with us some of that modelling or what you think is going to happen? You provided me with some answers about how many. Would you be able to provide any details of any other modelling you have done on the impact on these people?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some assistance may be able to provided about the second part of that question. Can I first of all say, Senator Scullion, that no veteran will be worse off. That is very important. We are talking about the partner service pension. This does not affect the veteran payments. This is simply about the partner or, to be frank, the ex-partner of those veterans. It is important that we make it very, very clear that no veteran will be worse off under this measure. The reality is that partners who move from the partner service pension to other payments by and large will get a very similar payment, if not exactly the same payment.

In terms of any socioeconomic modelling, I do not know that that is something that we should even contemplate, because if people are moving from the partner service pension to another payment they will be getting the same payment, particularly those people who have been grandfathered—for want of a better word—who are over the age of 63½. They are staying on the partner service pension but, if they were going to move, they would be on the age pension. It is essentially the same payment, but I absolutely underline that no veteran will have their payments or entitlements changed in any way at all.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the answer, Minister. I think I did allude to this, but perhaps there was a lot going on in the few moments before question time. I had seen a saving that may have been indicated with this measure in an EM that I thought was a bit dated. What sort of saving has been achieved with the measure?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, we have some information for you on that. This is complex because the initial explanatory memorandum has been changed by the subsequent changes in the EM that was tabled today. The savings with the partner service pension age pension are $35.1 million in the initial explanatory memorandum. That will be much the same. I think there is a change of $1.2 million to $1.2 million projected savings there. There has been reference to a figure of $113 million. That figure refers to the DVA savings—that is, the PSP age and the separated measures—but they exclude the cross-portfolio offsets. We are simply looking at the savings in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The revised net saving overall is $28 million over four years. Is that enough information, Senator?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that. I think I have a pretty good idea now. I understood that the $113 million was an administrative saving from within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Is that correct? Perhaps you could explain that part to me again.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That figure is from within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, without the offsets in FaHCSIA and DEWR being contemplated. They are the two departments that will pick up the replacement payment for those people who move off the partner service pension.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I notice that the implementation date has been moved from 1 January 2009 to 1 July 2009. What was the rationale for moving back that implementation date?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The rationale behind moving that date was that, following the community affairs committee inquiry, there was a recognition that a period of transition of six months would be helpful for those people who have a changed payment. It will allow for people to look at the arrangements that they may contemplate, and it will also ensure that those people who may apply to be retained on the partner service pension have an opportunity to do so in that six-month period.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated earlier, I understand that informally we have all received, as individual senators—certainly from this side—and as members in the other place, complaints or submissions about this measure. I wonder whether you would be able to provide me with the number of complaints that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has received from partners who are to lose their entitlement?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there have been about 100 contacts with the department with respect to this measure, but it should be recognised that many of those contacts were duplicate or multiple contacts on behalf of particular individuals. So you cannot extrapolate that number of contacts to reflect the number of individuals who have sought to express their concern about the measure. It is also important to recognise that, of the approximately 580 people who were contacted in September of this year, some 400 people have not responded to that letter. That would make one think that they are comfortable with what has been expressed in that letter.

It is not to say, though, Senator Scullion, that people are not concerned about the measure. A number of speakers in the second reading debate talked about the concerns that they have had expressed to them. Those concerns are shared by the government, and that is why we are bringing in these amendments to ameliorate the impact of this measure. We want to make sure that it is fair to those people who are vulnerable. Senator Boyce talked about vulnerable people. We are making sure with the amendments that we are currently debating that those people will be managed very carefully. We know there are some very vulnerable people in that group, and we are looking out for them. We want to ensure that the amendments that we are putting before the chamber this evening will look after their interests.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part of your new section 38(2AB) deals substantively with a number of circumstances under which persons would find an exemption, dealing primarily with psychological or mental health conditions, an accepted war-caused injury, accepted defence-caused injury et cetera. The last dot point is ‘a psychological or mental health condition that has been accepted for the purposes of’ et cetera. Is there a provision for dealing with claims of a mental health condition when the veteran’s partner claims that this is the reason for leaving a residence but the veteran has not actually been assessed? That is a specific issue that you can go to, Minister, but the general thrust of my question is to understand more about this.

You have created a series of circumstances under which if certain things happen then you are in. Yet there are a number of circumstances that are not writ large, and we are not sure about the extent of those circumstances. Perhaps in answering that question you could just go through, in a general sense, the appellant process, particularly where a partner who has left is then able to appeal in some sense. One of the principal issues here, of course, is if somebody says and acknowledges that they have a mental health issue. They certainly are not going to come under the last dot point unless they have been diagnosed and certainly some veterans may not be prepared to put their hand up and say, ‘I have a mental health issue.’ It might well be self-evident but, if they have not actually been diagnosed because they do not choose to go down that path, the partner is certainly going to be in a very difficult situation. So I would appreciate it if you could help me deal with the assessment process.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question, Senator Scullion. In terms of the accepted psychological or mental health condition, the amendment responds to concerns that veteran couples often separate due to the mental health effects of war or defence service. Thus, an accepted psychological or mental health condition for the purposes of this amendment is a condition accepted under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act or accepted by an allied government as being war, defence or service caused or a condition that has been accepted for the purposes of non-liability health care under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.

But you have invited me to speak more broadly. I think you set up a situation where a veteran has a mental illness but does not recognise that. We recognise that that is a potential problem. So, for the purposes of the exemption, in this circumstance it is allowable for the separated spouse to make—in most cases—her claim individually. So it does not require agreement from the veteran for that claim to be heard. I hope that the senator heard all that because it was quite relevant. As I said, Senator Scullion, in these circumstances, we recognise that the veteran—in most cases—himself may not recognise a mental illness, so it is appropriate that the spouse apply for exemption alone, without having to have concurrence from the veteran. In that situation, the spouse would fill out the form on her own behalf and she could make a claim in that way.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are technical matters but I still think we need to throw a little more light on that process. As a layperson I can understand that someone, particularly a partner in that circumstance, may read this and understand that that is the way you continue your partnering payment. But I find it very difficult to understand how you would make an assessment of a veteran’s mental health when the spouse is making the application without some compliance from the veteran. I am not trying to be mischievous and I hope I have not misunderstood you. I can understand where a partner may fill out the form independently, but at some stage an assessment has to be made of the veteran himself or herself to establish whether or not they meet that criterion. I would have thought that would have to come with the compliance of the veteran themselves.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you are aware that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is recognised as a department that is very close to its constituents. In those circumstances I think you would find that there would have been an assessment by the department of the veteran and the accepted psychological or mental health condition of the veteran would be known by the department. That is my advice, and I think you would recognise that that is pretty well understood. I would also say that the draft form that DVA have developed asks the following questions: have you ever taken out an apprehended violence order against your former veteran partner; in the relationship with your former veteran partner, were you ever fearful for your safety or that of your children, subjected to physical abuse or violence, subjected to psychological or emotional abuse or social isolation, threatened or oppressed? So, basically, the net is being thrown very widely so that anyone in a circumstance that may not be picked up by the letter of the law can be caught in the net. That is probably not the best analogy to use.

We are very clear that this is going to be applied in an extremely compassionate way. We know that there are many partners of veterans who have had very, very difficult lives, and in no way are we trying to make that situation any worse. So please be assured that the intent of the amendments that we are currently debating is to ensure that people who are in difficult circumstances are not affected at all by the change to the partner service pension.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has provided me answers that are pretty much a broad brush of the areas I wanted to go to. I have to say, Minister, that—and it may be because of the short period of time—the answers to some fairly complicated and technical questions may have been in error. I am heartily disappointed with a couple of aspects of the answers. It is not a matter of the detail. I think the thrust of some of your answers leaves me and, I am sure, many people extremely disappointed.

What I find very difficult to understand—and I am sure most Australians would find it difficult to understand—is why through this process we have somehow made a partner of a veteran less important than the veteran themselves. These are people for whom we have had a special measure because they have cared for a veteran. When people go into a theatre of war, in many circumstances they unfortunately bring it back. Wives have told me, and I am sure many of us in this place have been told, ‘When my husband came back from war we stayed at war.’ We acknowledge the fact that the partner is so important to the continued wellbeing of the veteran that we should treat them differently to welfare recipients. This is an acknowledgement of the special role that that partner plays.

These changes in the legislation appear, Minister, to look at the position of partners and say: ‘We will look after the veterans. No veteran will be worse off.’ The actual payment to the veteran might be to the letter of the law, Minister, but I think it is going to be very hard to convince people that the veteran is somehow better off in the many circumstances where they still rely on their partner. They may be separated from their partner but they still rely on them, particularly when the veteran gets ill. We have found many circumstances where partners return and become the carer again. They may not live in a marriage-like relationship, but the partner certainly is a carer again. I think we are walking away from a position where we have given particular importance to the partner.

That is why the opposition have been somewhat miffed at the motive for this. I understand that the razor gang has been out and everybody has to do their bit of cutting. It is a tough business; I acknowledge that. This issue is too sensitive to politicise, so I acknowledge that everyone has their job to do. You say they are no worse off, but $28 million does not come from me and you, Minister. Somebody else has made a contribution. And if you say it is not the veterans then the only demographic left is veterans’ partners. Veterans’ partners are going to be $28 million or thereabouts worse off. That is an awful lot of money in quite a small group of people. Whilst I appreciate the answers to the questions, the opposition are completely unconvinced by them.

We are going to support the government amendments. The amendments substantially deal with section 2AA, and I think that is a fundamental that will move the legislation forward. It will not go to where we want it to go, but we will always support amendments that move legislation to a better place. I think that is the job of everybody in here. The amendments do not move the legislation to where we think it should be, but we are happy to support them because they do move it to a better place.

I have to say, Minister, that there are still many questions. I have been in the same position in this chamber and I know that the provision of information on short notice can be very difficult. I acknowledge you have done your best. But I am left with the feeling that many of these issues have not been properly thought out. As I said earlier, this has been policy on the run. I acknowledge I make mistakes every day in my life. I just get on with it and change them and fix them. And that is obviously what has been done here. Clearly we have acknowledged that there have to be some changes. There has been some feedback and the government has now moved to make changes. But perhaps the best thing would have been to take the advice of a number of individuals who were very close to the matter. Some time ago, when the legislation was originally dealt with, the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs and member for Greenway, Louise Markus, moved a second reading amendment, which said the House:

… condemns the Government’s stubborn determination to insist that from 1 January 2009 partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached the age for the age pension, will have their partner service pension eligibility cease 12 months after being separated or immediately if the veteran enters a marriage-like relationship …

That was a very difficult time. Nobody in this place wants suddenly to step in the way of a budget measure. It was a big deal. Suddenly we were all responsible and people were going to hit us on the head with hammers. This is a slightly different circumstance, but the amendments are perfectly where we are going. They are where we should have been going right back then. I think the member for Greenway needs to be commended for the foresight of that particular amendment.

The coalition will be supporting your amendments but we will be bringing other amendments forward. You say the test for this is that veterans will be no worse off, but not only is this a test about veterans; it is a test about families. In these circumstances we cannot excise an individual from the family or community unit, say, ‘We’re just dealing with him,’ and forget about the support groups that naturally support him. All the veterans will tell you that there is no-one more important than their partner. They will acknowledge that, even if they are separated from their partner and the circumstances are not perfect, the most important thing in the period of their lives since they returned from whatever theatre they were in has been their partner. I do not think we can separate them. The government has said, ‘We can’t take it off veterans but in this area who else can we take it off?’ That has enabled it to cut some $28 million. It sounds a lot of money to someone outside this place. Because of the sort of pain and lack of support that this will involve, and in view of the fact that we do not appear to have done much modelling, it is not something we support. We will be supporting the amendment, but we will be moving further amendments so we can have a better circumstance.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I first of all say thank you to Senator Scullion for his indication of support for amendments (1) to (7). The government’s position is about ensuring that benefits reflect a person’s circumstances. I think we all know and recognise that the group of people we are discussing have very varied circumstances. There are the people whom Senator Scullion just described—those people for whom war has not ended. Their partners have provided support, through very difficult times, to their veteran partners. That is why we moved those amendments. Those are the people we want to ensure continue to be supported. The group of people Senator Scullion is talking about are the people who will be picked up by the government amendments that we are dealing with at the moment.

The government’s position is about ensuring that benefits reflect a person’s own circumstances, and we all know that the circumstances of this group of people are extremely varied. There will be people who are more appropriately provided with support through another payment mechanism or in fact encouraged and supported into employment. So this is an equity measure; this is a fairness measure. This is a measure that is designed to ensure that people get the entitlements for which they are eligible, and I think that in the veterans community in particular that is a principle that we all hold dear. People need to be eligible for an entitlement to receive that entitlement.

The government understand that certain separated partners require special consideration. That is why we have moved the amendments. It is dealt with through eligibility for illness separated status. In those circumstances where the separation has resulted from the psychological condition of the veteran due to his war service, the additional eligibility provisions come into effect. Can I assure the Senate that, under the government’s amendments, those genuinely affected are able to put their case forward and it will be sympathetically considered.

Question agreed to.

The government opposes schedule 2 in the following terms:

(8)    Schedule 2, Part 3, page 20 (lines 2 to 23), TO BE OPPOSED.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that Schedule 2, part 3 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition opposes schedule 2 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 2, items 5, 6 and 7, page 18 (line 7) to page 19 (line 10), items 5, 6 and 7 (as amended) TO BE OPPOSED.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that Schedule 2, items 5 to 7, as amended, stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.