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

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. It has three schedules. Schedule 1 and schedule 3, whilst I will make some submissions on them, are fairly non-controversial for us. It is schedule 2 that I will come back to and spend a little time on.

Schedule 1 makes amendments to align the maternity immunisation allowance with the National Immunisation Program by paying the allowance for children who meet the 18-month and four-year-old immunisation requirements in two payments instead of one. Two half-payments of the maternity immunisation allowance will be available for children up to the age of five. An additional eligibility category will allow payment of the MIA for a child between four and five years of age, provided eligibility is met and all immunisation requirements are also met.

The maternity immunisation allowance paid in respect of older, overseas adopted children will be the full rate of the MIA. Overall, no more than two half-payments or one full payment of the MIA will be made in respect of any child. This bill also extends the eligibility for the maternity immunisation allowance to children adopted from overseas who enter Australia before turning 16 and who are immunised appropriately after arrival.

The opposition supports this measure. It builds upon initiatives introduced by the previous government that significantly increase the funding for and the rates of child immunisation. In 1995, immunisation rates for children from birth to six years were as low as 52 per cent. The coalition government’s policies and programs improved that rate to an all-time high of within 90 per cent of all children from 12 to 15 months being fully immunised. We continue to support that aspect of the legislation.

I turn now to schedule 3. This schedule deals with child support and makes minor technical amendments to the child support legislation. It addresses a number of anomalies and clarifies aspects of the child support formula reforms that commenced on 1 July 2008. The schedule is set out in seven parts. I think it is of note that each part has its own commencement date, with some delays to 28 days after royal assent. This is for service delivery reasons and to allow changes to some of the computer systems for delivery aspects and forms and to allow staff to ensure that they are trained appropriately. The opposition again supports these amendments to the child support system as they continue to build on the significant reforms to the child support system introduced by the previous government, and adopted by the Rudd Labor government, that are delivering a strong and fairer system.

I move now to schedule 2 of the bill. We spoke out against this schedule when it was first introduced in the other place. The opposition and others have been pretty forthright in their criticism of particular aspects of this schedule. In the previous budget, the government announced two major changes to veterans entitlements, and they are included in this bill. They relate to the partner service pension.

Firstly, the government announced that, as of 1 January 2009, those who are separated—that is, partners of veterans who are separated but still legally married to a veteran—will cease receiving the partner service pension. It was anticipated that this measure would provide a net saving to the government of $33.9 million over four years. The government then increased their forecast saving on this item to $40.6 million over four years. Under this measure, eligibility for the partner service pension will cease 12 months after separation or immediately if the veteran enters a marriage-like relationship. The opposition continue to be opposed to this matter, and we are not alone in that matter. The RSL says:

It is the strong belief of the RSL, that the passage of the section of the Bill that relates to the cessation of eligibility for Partner Service Pension for those partners who are separated but not divorced from their Veteran spouse and who have not reached age pension age would cause undue hardship and distress to the separated spouse. It should be noted that the separated spouse is still legally married to the Veteran.

I know that there are many other stakeholders and many individuals across Australia who have provided a voice, not only to the opposition but also to the government and the media, on this matter. I am pleased to see that the government are introducing some amendments across the board in the schedule that hopefully will deal with those matters.

The second aspect of this is that the government announced another measure which further erodes veteran entitlements, and that is an increase in the eligibility age for the partner service pension, which was previously 50 years. What have the government done? In the last budget, they said: ‘As a cost-saving measure, we’re going to increase the eligibility age to 58.5 years for women and 60 years for men.’ That came into effect on 1 July 2008.

The government now proposes to make changes to its own unpopular legislation—and as I have said they have justifiably received significant opposition from many quarters on this matter. During the election campaign so many promises were made but I still recall, as I am sure those on the other side will, Kevin Rudd saying that veterans would not be worse off under a Labor government. That was an absolute commitment. It was another one of those commitments for which, as we look in the rear-view mirror—I am not sure if it is a bit cloudy or there has been a change in temperature—the image does seem to be becoming very misty. This is just another example of how an actual promise to a particular section of our community has been clearly breached.

They said veterans would not be worse off under a Rudd government, but in the first budget—

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Stephens interjecting—

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

We have had an interjection from the other side saying ‘How can they possibly be worse off?’ Well, I will put it to the Australian people to work that out. In the first budget, the government ripped $113 million out of veterans entitlements with those two measures alone. I understand, as I am sure all veterans across Australia do, that if you are $113 million worse off through two entitlements then you are worse off. I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to work that out.

I do not want to verbal the government, but it certainly appears to be intended to shift a veterans entitlement into some sort of a welfare payment. Certainly, in real terms people would, under those circumstances, be shifting from an entitlement that is a very special entitlement that recognises the very special contribution that veterans and their partners have made to this country. Because of the changes, there is the potential that instead of receiving an entitlement after 12 months you suddenly would simply be receiving Newstart. That is something that we think is completely unacceptable. It absolutely ignores the often life-long commitment given and the stress endured by many partners in support of our veterans when they return from serving our country.

The changes to the age eligibility proposed in this bill demonstrate that the government now recognise that veterans are worse off under this government and that they are attempting to rectify bad policy on the run. The coalition strongly believes that veterans are entitled to special entitlements, particularly as a way of recognising the special contribution and sacrifices made not only by the men and women who have served overseas and served our country but also by their partners.

I must also make the point that the changes made by the government after it was elected have attacked the income of veterans. This is from a government that came to office claiming to support veterans. It has been all talk from the government—plenty of headline-grabbing announcements followed up by half-baked policy. They have not even defrosted this pie. Talk about half baked—it is still hard in the middle. I am not surprised about the number of veterans, particularly those who supported the government, who would be looking to get their money back.

We have got policy on the run that is being dictated by a razor gang determined to slash spending. It can only lead to a reduction in pension and entitlement payments. This is what the opposition said would happen. This is what we predicted when these cuts were announced in the budget. We now see the attack on the veterans coming home to bite the government. I have to say that I will always acknowledge good behaviour, and I acknowledge that the amendments the government are putting forward do, to some degree, ameliorate the pain that they have caused the veteran community.

As I alluded to earlier in this speech, we have a number of amendments that we will be moving to this schedule in the legislation because we do not believe that the amendments that will be brought by the government—we have yet to hear them and we will see how they go—will go far enough to ensure that the very special contribution made by the veteran community to this country is acknowledged through their entitlements.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 is an omnibus bill that deals with three very different but important issues for families. Schedule 1 introduces changes to the maternity immunisation allowance, which will see payments to families split into two parts. Each payment will now be timed to coincide with the due date of the immunisation. This measure also extends eligibility to families who have adopted children from overseas. In our view this is a useful amendment to the immunisation allowance.

As Senator Scullion just articulated, schedule 3 introduces changes to child support arrangements. These are relatively minor changes to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. These changes have raised few concerns with those who gave evidence to the Senate inquiry; however, many of the comments that the Senate inquiry received into this bill related to other problems that have emerged from the 2006 reforms, which are only just being put in place now. These problems with child support are significant and we believe they need to be addressed, but we agree that this particular bill is not the vehicle for addressing those concerns. We trust that the government will take on board the concerns raised in the committee of inquiry when reviewing more extensively the implementation of the 2006 changes and the operation of the act.

Schedule 2—I am sure we are going to hear a lot about it today—is the most contentious element of this bill as it introduces amendments that impact on the eligibility for the partner service pension. I would like to address these proposed changes in more detail. On the positive side, the age of eligibility for partner service pension has been lowered from 58.5 years to 50 years, where the veteran is in receipt of certain categories above general rate disability pension. This measure softens the impact of the increase in age eligibility for partner service pension that was passed by the Senate earlier this year. This raised the age of eligibility for partner service pension from age 50 to age 58.5 years. This is part of an overall approach to equalise eligibility for all people—men and women. The changes also reflect a move to ensure that a person is supported not because of their dependency on another, but in their own right. They will no longer receive a pension or income support on the basis of their dependent relationship.

In principle the Greens agree with this aspect of government policy but, like all social changes, it has potentially large impacts and these need to be managed thoughtfully and carefully. We are therefore pleased that in the case of veterans with higher levels of disability their partner will continue to be eligible for the partner service pension at the younger age, and we support this amendment.

There is a second change to eligibility for the partner service pension in schedule 2, and this is much less welcome. Under current legislation, separated partners of veterans remain on the partner service pension unless they enter into another marriage-like relationship. The government bill proposes that separated partners of veterans lose their entitlement to the pension once they have been separated from the veteran for a period of 12 months. The government originally proposed that they would lose their entitlement immediately if the veteran commenced another relationship. Many of these people—and, let’s face it, these are nearly all women that we are talking about—expected to receive their partner pension for the rest of their lives. Many have been out of the workforce for a considerable period and are unlikely to have superannuation or recent employment skills. So, when this amendment was announced, it understandably caused a great deal of concern. My office received many letters, emails and phone calls, and I am sure every other member of parliament in Australia—particularly of the federal parliament—received similar emails, letters and phone calls.

This change has the potential to impact the wellbeing and financial security of a group of people who have, in many cases, faced considerable hardship. These people face the prospect of being advised by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs that they have lost their entitlement to the pension. Prior to the government circulating amendments, which I will get to later, there was the prospect that a certain group of partners, of women, would have had their pensions cancelled from 1 January. I will go on to these amendments shortly.

Many partners—and, again, we are talking about women here—have had to separate from their veteran partner because of physical or mental health issues. We heard evidence during the committee inquiry that some partners have spent a considerable period living with, caring for and supporting a veteran partner suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, or other significant physical or mental health issues. Largely, these are veterans whose mental health has been recognised by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. In fact, out of the 580 separated couples affected by this legislation, 390 include a veteran with either a mental illness or post-traumatic stress disorder. Some of the partners in these relationships have suffered from violence and psychological abuse as a result of living with their veteran. These partners have, in many cases, stayed for many years with their veteran but have finally had to leave the family home due to the threat of violence or psychological abuse.

Some partners have managed to remain in contact with their veteran, and they have maintained a social and public life as a family and as a couple. This has particularly been the case when the veteran’s illness is episodic. During times when the veteran is well, the family is able to reunite, in some sense. Couples who are separated due to physical or mental illness are likely to fall into the category of illness separated couples. An illness separated couple usually refers to a couple who have been separated due to one partner being in hospital, in respite or in aged care. However, as officials from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs explained to the inquiry, a couple who live apart due to the veteran’s psychological condition can also be considered an illness separated couple. This means that the separated partner will retain an entitlement to the partner service pension as long as neither partner commences another relationship and as long as they continue to maintain their relationship as a couple, even while living apart. That is termed a ‘married-like relationship’.

However, there is another group of partners who, for reasons of safety, have not maintained contact or have been unable to maintain contact with the veteran. These are partners who lived with their veteran partner for many years until their mental illness became so threatening that they felt forced to leave for their own safety and/or for the safety of their children. Neither partner has remarried and, in some cases, they have tried unsuccessfully to reconcile, but mental illness suffered by the veteran has made it impossible for the partner to stay without suffering further abuse. The inquiry into this legislation allowed the voices of this particularly vulnerable group of partners to be heard. The Greens were pleased to hear from a number of individuals and organisations that support partners of veterans. We listened very carefully to what they had to say. We particularly thank the organisations for representing the views of their membership in such an effective manner, both to the committee inquiry and also to us individually.

As outlined in our report to the inquiry, the Greens have some concerns about the eligibility of separated partners to receive the partner service pension. We have some concerns around the issues that were raised in the inquiry but we do not reject the change completely, believing that it reflects societal change. The government bill means that a partner of working age who has separated but not yet divorced from their veteran is no longer able to receive a partner service pension for life. If the marriage has ended—for the many reasons that marriages do end—then we accept that the separated partner should no longer have access to the partner service pension because of their dependency. We agree that, in many cases, these people need the support of the community and need some form of income support but not due to their dependency. We agree, as a reflection of societal change, that a person has the right to support as an individual. We agree with the move towards people being eligible for income support in their own right rather than on the basis of a relationship in which they are dependent on another.

However, there were some aspects of the bill that we believe were not fair or just to many of the partners, many of whom are women. They have been caught in the middle because of these changes and because certain aspects of the bill originally did not consider their circumstances.

The evidence to the inquiry clearly indicated consequences of the government’s bill, some of which we believed were simply unfair. Since the inquiry, I am pleased that the government has, in fact, taken on board these concerns and is proposing some amendments. A dissenting report to the inquiry focused particularly on the situation facing the most vulnerable group of partners. These are the partners who have been unable to maintain contact with their veteran due to the extreme nature of their mental illness, which has led to domestic violence and a threat to the personal safety of the partner and, in some cases, children. Partners and veterans in this situation are not considered illness separated couples. If you were recognised as an illness separated couple, you would be okay. Because a person’s illness has resulted in domestic violence, you cannot maintain contact and you cannot maintain a marriage-like relationship. These people were caught up in these provisions.

We are pleased that the government has agreed to amend the bill so that partners in this situation remain eligible for the partner service pension—that is, they will be regarded as illness separated couples. We support this amendment because it protects a very vulnerable group of people who have already suffered a lot and who stood to face further suffering by elements of this bill.

A very serious concern that was also raised in the inquiry was the lack of a transition period. The inquiry into this legislation was held in November. The legislation is now before the Senate and was due to come into effect on 1 January 2009. We do not believe this is an adequate time frame for people to adjust to the changes in their lives. Those partners who will lose their entitlement to the partner service pension may be eligible for income from Centrelink or they may need to seek at least part-time employment and reorganise their finances. It certainly effects change in their lives, and if we can possibly ameliorate the adverse impacts of change on people’s lives we should do that. We believe these women need more time to adjust than the brief period between this legislation passing—by the end of this week—and 1 January, which is less than four weeks away. We are pleased, therefore, that the government has amended the date when this bill will commence and it will now commence on 1 July. This gives those who may lose their entitlement a greater period of time to adjust to the change. We think this transition period is essential to those affected.

The government has suggested another amendment that we support. The bill proposes that on 1 January a person separated from a veteran partner will lose entitlement to the partner service pension immediately if the veteran establishes another relationship. This places the partner at the mercy of the veteran’s decision. Now, with the amendments to the bill introduced by the government, as we understand it a person in this situation will also be entitled to a 12-month period of separation that applies to all separated partners before they lose eligibility for the pension. The Greens are pleased the government has responded to concerns with these amendments. These amendments act to protect the most vulnerable group of partners. An area that was particularly pointed out during the Senate inquiry was the issue of domestic violence and of those who have separated and cannot maintain a marriage-like relationship as a direct result of the mental illness suffered by the veteran.

Partners over the pension age will remain on the partner service pension. Partners with dependant children are still entitled to partner service pensions. Partners separated from their veteran due to psychological illness will, in many cases, still be eligible to receive their partner service pension. The Greens also believe that it is important that the government ensures the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is properly resourced so that it can properly handle the inquiries received and fully respond to people’s concerns while they reorganise their lives and their finances. I must add here that evidence received at the inquiry suggested that the minister’s office and the department had been very responsive and very helpful to those people who had contacted the offices and who were trying to assist the 580 people who are potentially affected by this legislation.

As with any process of social transition, people deserve to be fully informed and consulted. The creation of a special team within the department to administer the change in legislation is a good basis for this. As I said, we are pleased that the government have listened to the concerns expressed, have particularly dealt with the transition period so that people have time to adjust, have provided more time for partners whose veteran partner remarries, and have dealt with that particularly vulnerable group of people who have had to separate from their partner due to mental illness by providing for them and clearly specifying them as illness separated couples.

The Greens support this legislation on the basis of these amendments because we think that it deals with the very significant issues that were raised during the Senate inquiry and makes this bill much fairer on those people who are potentially affected by the changes in this legislation. As I said earlier, the Greens do accept that we are making a societal transition not only to recognise that men and women should be dealt with equally under our social security system but also to recognise that a person has a right to income support or a pension in their own right—not as a dependant on somebody else. This legislation enacts both of those concepts.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a number of speakers have already noted, the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 is an omnibus bill. When it was initially referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, there was very little comment made about the immunisation allowance or about changes to child support. What was brought to the attention of committee members, through great numbers of letters and emails from the veterans community and from the spouses and partners of veterans, was their concerns about schedule 2 of this bill. I would particularly like to thank the community affairs committee for taking the late reference of schedule 2 of the bill into consideration. In fact, it became our major focus during our hearing on the subject.

There are two points that I think are of particular relevance, from the number of submissions that we received in this area and the number of letters and emails that I know senators received from people in the veterans community. As Senator Moore has pointed out, from the figures that are available, it would appear that there are 580 separated spouses who are affected by this legislation. That is not by any means a large number, and yet the amount of work that was done by people in the veterans community and in the RSL community I think demonstrates the great strength of their sense of extended family within that community. I think it also underlines the somewhat mean-spirited nature of the government’s intentions with this legislation. If we look at the figures that the government are now putting out to back this bill, they are suggesting that it might save a maximum of $3 million over the financial year, with savings of less than $1½ million over the following three years. It is hardly going to revolutionise the world, but it is potentially going to turn the lives of 580 women—because most of these people are the separated wives of veterans—upside down. I would also like to comment on the efforts of the Greens to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of this bill. We will get into discussions about that during the Committee of the Whole stage.

The evidence that we had in letters and all manner of emails told us over and over that this is a very special cohort within our community. These are not the same people who go through the Family Court in relation to separation at any other time. I have had letters from women who have left their marriage because of the extreme violence involved but have then gone back. Some even divorced their husbands but later remarried them. They love them but they just cannot live with them. Some letters have said that it is not uncommon for a wife to be the carer even though the couple have been separated for years, and some wives who have left their husbands have returned to nurse them when they have become extremely ill. As I said earlier, some women have even divorced the veterans but have gone on caring when they have become very ill.

I think that we really need to concentrate on the reasons for these stop-start relationships, which I do not think the legislation still properly appreciates. It is because of the trauma suffered by these men during their time in war. I will read out the letter that best expressed this, but I will use different names because she asked to keep the names confidential.

My name is Mary. I am now 59. I married a great young man in 1967, and we had a three-year-old son when my husband went to Vietnam in 1970-71. He came home to me a totally different person, and we soon found out he had turned into a violent man. We had two more children and had another 30 years of living with this violence since he returned home. I couldn’t take it anymore after he attacked our daughter and broke her leg.

I loved my husband, and I still do, in a strange way, but I had to leave him for my own safety. I have phone calls from him even now, and he still visits. We are not divorced. If he is ill, I go to see him. The decision to take the service pension away from women who had to leave due to their husband’s illness will affect me greatly.

I think that we could quite easily assume that, if we change the legislation so that the partners of people who are recognised as having post-traumatic stress disorder are excluded from the pension, we fix it, but in fact we do not. If you look through the evidence that has been given over and over, in emails and letters, and if you look at the information from the Partners of Veterans Association, it tells us that in virtually all cases these men will not seek assistance or assessment. They will often refuse to see that they are the ones with the illness and they refuse to be treated. We could say, ‘That is a big problem for the people involved, isn’t it?’ But it is the wives who, over and over, have for 20, 30 or 40 years cared for these people who are punished for the fact that their veteran husbands may not be well enough to even recognise that they need assistance, assessment or help. We have to work harder, in my view, to find a solution that assists these people.

I think we also need to have a look at the numbers involved. I have spoken a little bit about the miserable million dollars or so that would be saved if the amendments that are now proposed by the government were to go through. If we look at the numbers who would be affected by the changes, there are, as Senator Moore pointed out, 580 separated wives who are caught up in this. Of those women, 265 are between 58½ and 63 years, 240 are between 50 and 58½ years, and 75 are under 50 years. Of greatest concern is that, out of those 580 women, 362 are married to veterans who have an accepted diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. So 362 of the 580 might be covered by the proposed amendments. That leaves 218 who are not covered. This is a very big, very mean stick to be wielding at 218 women who are separated from their veteran husbands who are not diagnosed as having post-traumatic stress disorder. From the information that we have received, these are men who, in the main, will not agree to accept the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. How much do we save by wiping those 218 women off the bill? We save $56.40 a week for each one of them. As I said, this seems like a very big and very blunt instrument to be using.

We have heard some comments today that this is an excellent move in a social sense, because it saves these women from receiving any entitlement simply because they are the partner of someone. It assesses them as an individual. The problem, of course, is that the reason that they need this support is because of that partnership and because—I do not think this is drawing too long a bow—of the service that they have given in supporting their veteran husbands in very trying, very violent and very difficult circumstances. Let us turn this around and look at it from the point of view of the RSL, who are very concerned, as are the partners involved, at what they perceive to be the civilianisation of their benefits. Service personnel do not receive pensions because they need them. They receive them because, as a country, we have the view that we owe veterans and their families a pension or an entitlement because of the service they have done for us. It is about a debt that we need to repay. It is not about a welfare assistance, as the Centrelink benefits such as Newstart would be. That is where we would be sending these women who are perhaps in their mid-50s and have cared for husbands who were extremely unwell and have raised children in households that were sometimes very difficult. We would be sending these women off to go onto Newstart. In my view, that is an appalling travesty, given the service that they have done for us and for Australia.

It would be lovely to be able to say, ‘We are doing this for the good of these women.’ If we are, they are not very pleased about it. Let us look behind the reasoning that is there and genuinely understand their views on this issue. The Partners of Veterans Association of Australia has commented that these changes to the service pension for partners are a ridiculous exercise in futility with very little financial gain for the government, with additional cost of administration, turning on its head the whole issue of moving veterans’ entitlements to welfare status. There is in the veteran community an extraordinary upswelling of support for these women, but there is also the concern that this is the Labor government’s thin end of the wedge. If these sorts of entitlements can be twisted into being seen as welfare entitlements, what will happen over time as the government chips away—as we have seen here, not even for a major degree of savings—at the rights of the veteran community and those who support them? As Senator Scullion has pointed out, we will be opposing parts of schedule 2 in this bill.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a brief contribution to this debate not only because the Senate has plenty on its plate this week but also because previous senators have so well demonstrated in their comments the reasons we should be concerned about the direction of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I particularly refer to Senator Scullion and Senator Boyce’s excellent contributions. This legislation attempts to civilianise the arrangements for the separated partners of veterans. I think it is extremely clear that we do this in a way which fails to acknowledge the very clear and exceptional circumstances in which these partners so often find themselves.

It has been said by the government that we should not treat partners in these circumstances any differently from anybody else in the community who happens to be separated from a person with an entitlement to a pension. I think that the evidence before the Australian community today suggests that there are very good reasons for treating these people in a different fashion from other potential recipients of welfare payments from government. My attention has in recent years been drawn—and I would be surprised if other senators were not also well aware of this—to the Vietnam Veterans Family Study program, a very ambitious program to analyse the health and social needs of those who served in Vietnam between 1962 and 1975. The study has a cohort of 20,000 people: 10,000 Vietnam veterans and a control group of 10,000 Army personnel who served between those years but did not serve in Vietnam. It demonstrates that there is a great deal that we need to understand about the various health and social needs of those people and their families. The study includes the veterans themselves and their families—that is, their partners, ex-partners, children and stepchildren, as well as the veterans’ siblings and their families.

The physical effects on these people of things such as Agent Orange and other hazardous materials are better understood than they once were and are still being explored, but the psychological impact on veterans and their families is an issue which remains substantially a mystery to the Australian community, particularly the Australian government. The psychological pressures on veterans and their families need to be better understood before changes of the kind which are put forward in this legislation are proceeded with. I would be surprised if anybody in this chamber had not had some contact with the Vietnam veteran community around the country. My contact in this territory as a territory senator suggests that there are a number of problems and issues associated with that service to veterans and the impact of that service on their families which the community and its representatives work through

It is absolutely wrong, in my view, to assume that a partner of a veteran who separates from that veteran should be treated like any other woman—they are generally women—and simply be required to go out into the workforce, obtain employment and obtain a Newstart allowance as if they were somebody who simply had not been in the workforce for some period of time and were now required to seek work. These people are in a different position. They have been affected by their veteran partners’ service, their needs are very different and the work that many of these people have done to support the veterans and the children and dependents of those veterans over a period of time puts them in a very different position from other people in apparently analogous situations. To require these generally older women to be seeking employment when, despite their separation, they might still have responsibilities to the veteran and the veteran’s family is, in my view, an obnoxious concept, and I call on the government to reconsider the direction it takes with this legislation.

I welcome the amendments the government has put forward, and I think they are valuable in mitigating the effect of this legislation. But, as Senator Boyce has clearly indicated, in a sense the amendments the government is going to move in this place make the legislation itself, with respect to the partner service pension, even more objectionable. The number of people we are talking about is very small—perhaps only 200 or 300 people, mainly women. They have separated from their veteran partner and there is no identifiable psychological condition which can bring them into the category of an ‘illness separated partner’. These people are not great in number and, therefore, the saving that the government hopes to make by effecting these amendments will not be significant. We cannot say with certainty in the case of these 200 or 300 women just what the background for the separation is and, therefore, whether that separation may not be attributable to the service concerned and whether it would still be unreasonable in these circumstances to require them to seek employment as if they were persons who had simply chosen to be out of the workforce for 10, 20 or 30 years. These people still face significant burdens of responsibility. These people may still have a range of other issues to deal with in the context of their family responsibilities which I believe warrant different treatment. Given the amount the government proposes to save by effecting these amendments, we should ask ourselves whether these amendments really are a manifestation of good public policy. Frankly, I sincerely doubt it.

We are left in a position where the government has realised it has gone too far in its original concept of these amendments. The government is pulling back to some degree from the original effects so that some of these women are being pulled back into an entitlement to a partner service pension. But the question remains: are we really certain that the people who are not caught by these amendments should be treated like people who are simply entering the workforce after a period of being outside the workforce? If we cannot answer that question satisfactorily, we should err on the side of caution and leave them within the net that we have created as an acknowledgement for the service of their partners or ex-partners. These people have given service in exceptional circumstances, particularly where they have been involved in a theatre of war. We know they will come back with potentially a number of conditions of a psychological nature which we will not and cannot fully understand. If we do not understand the nature of the burden which these people bear, which they have incurred in the name of the nation, then we owe it to them to give them some leniency and acknowledge the pressure on them and their families and protect them to some extent from the pressures which other people might face in analogous circumstances.

I welcome the government’s amendments. I am sorry they do not acknowledge that the amendment to reduce any entitlement to a pension at all is unwarranted. I hope the Senate will consider seriously the amendments which are going to being moved by the coalition to maintain the entitlement of these wives to a pension even if they cannot establish a psychological condition which warrants their separation from their partner.

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

The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 will address certain further budget and other measures within the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs portfolios. The first schedule to the bill is about maternity immunisation allowance. This is a lump sum payment of $243.30 from 20 September that encourages families to protect their young children by having them immunised. Under current legislation the allowance is paid for children aged between 18 months and two years who are immunised to the recommended level or have a formal exemption. The bill will now provide for a restructuring of the allowance to align it more closely with the National Immunisation Program. The amendments will give parents an incentive to have their four-year-olds given their recommended boosters before they begin school. To achieve this the allowance will be paid in two payments for children who meet the requirements for immunisation at 18 months and four years old.

The first payment will be paid when the child is aged between 18 months and two years and the second will be paid when the child is aged between four and five years. The change will apply from January 2009 to eligible families who have not already been paid the full allowance. The new half-payment rate, which will initially be $121.65, will increase as the full rate of the allowance continues to be indexed twice a year. This means that the second payment may be higher than the first because of the flow-through effects of any intervening indexation. The National Immunisation Program currently recommends several important immunisations for four-year-olds, including diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles and polio. The changes in the bill emphasise the benefit of those immunisations and should lead to many Australians having a better overall level of immunisation.

The second maternity immunisation allowance measure in the bill will extend eligibility for the allowance to children adopted from outside Australia who enter Australia before turning 16. Older adopted children will need to be immunised between 18 months and two years after arrival. To get the allowance at present, families have to claim it within two years of the child’s birth and meet the recommended immunisation levels before the child turns two. Clearly, this requirement does not work well for older children adopted from overseas. In extending the allowance for those older children, the bill reinforces the message provided by this payment in support of immunisation for children in the Australian community. The measure also provides the government’s response to recommendation 10 of the 2005 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into overseas adoption in Australia. That inquiry recommended, on an equity basis, that the Minister for Family and Community Services amend the eligibility criteria for the maternity immunisation allowance in the case of children adopted from overseas so the eligibility period is two years after the child’s entry to Australia. The government agrees with that approach.

The bill includes amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act in relation to partner service pension. The veterans entitlements amendments will set the eligible age for partner service pension at 50 years for certain partners. This will apply to the partner of a veteran who is receiving the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate disability pension, or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Partners of veterans affected by this measure under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act are those where the veteran is in receipt of general rate disability pension that is increased by an amount specified in any of items 1 to 6 of the table in subsection 27(1); extreme disablement adjustment disability pension; intermediate rate disability pension; and temporary special rate disability pension.

In relation to the measure affecting eligibility for partner service pension for separated partners, the government has heard the concerns of the community and of the members of both houses of parliament. In saying this, I again thank the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs for its inquiry into and report on the legislation. As Senator Moore said earlier, the work of this committee on this particular piece of legislation is a reminder to us all of the value of the Senate committee system to explore legislation and to make recommendations on amendments. In response to these concerns, the government will shortly be moving amendments to the bill to modify the measure. The amendments will change the commencement date for the measure from 1 January 2009 to 1 July 2009, to give affected partners more time to make alternative financial arrangements.

The previous measure proposed that partner service pension would cease immediately if the person was under age pension age and the veteran entered into a new marriage-like relationship. The amendments will now enable a person who is under age pension age to retain partner service pension if the veteran enters into a new marriage-like relationship within 12 months of the date of separation. This will ensure that, following separation, the partner will have the benefit of a full 12-month period to make alternative financial arrangements. Finally, the amendments will enable a person who is under age pension age to retain partner service pension after the 12-month separation period if, at the date of separation, the person is the partner of a veteran who has an accepted psychological or mental health condition, the person is not living with the veteran and there is supporting information of an unsafe domestic environment. This modified measure creates a balance between providing appropriately targeted assistance and rationalising income support so that it reflects community standards and is suited to an individual’s current circumstances. A spouse who is a member of an illness separated couple will not be affected because he or she remains the partner of a veteran and therefore does not lose eligibility for partner service pension. A couple who are illness separated must be unable to live together in the matrimonial home because of the illness or infirmity of either or both of them. Certain assessment criteria must be met.

The last schedule to the bill introduces some minor amendments to the child support legislation, particularly to address some minor anomalies regarding the child support formula reforms that commenced on 1 July 2008. One such anomaly relates to Child Support Agency decisions about care. The amendments will make sure, in all situations where parents agree on the level of care for a child, that level of care will be reflected accurately in the assessment. One further child support amendment will ensure that the CSA can make departure prohibition orders in certain cases. DPOs prevent parents with a child support debt from leaving the country without paying, or making arrangements to pay, those outstanding amounts. Recent amendments moved certain overseas related provisions from regulations into primary legislation, but unintentionally removed the ability for the CSA to issue a DPO for certain registrable overseas maintenance liabilities. The amendment in this bill would allow the CSA to issue a DPO for international parents on a similar basis as for domestic parents. I thank the senators who made a contribution to the second reading debate. I imagine we will now go into committee, where we will have the opportunity to further explore the bill, in particular schedule 2.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.