Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the adjournment debate tonight I wish to address a matter of substance, a matter I have raised on previous occasions—namely, the defence widows pension. It is also known, incorrectly these days, as the war widows pension. The difference in terminology is important for one particular reason. Through the work of the Senate committee on foreign affairs and defence in 2004, the distinction between widows was identified. Widows bereaved by a death on operational service overseas were treated differently to widows bereaved in Australia in peacetime service. The committee’s view simply was that we should not distinguish between causes of death. Grief, of course, does not distinguish between widows. Also, it is very hard to distinguish between the death of someone on the battlefield and the death of someone who dies some time later from wounds incurred there, though the longer the period between death and injury the lower the probability of any connection.

That is a very important principle and one I trust is never lost. It is important because it also applies to other areas of military compensation. The same distinction, conceivably, should also be made for disability compensation, as it is overseas in all allied jurisdictions. That is, an injury incurred on overseas service should be treated the same as if it occurred in peacetime. One of the great inequities in military compensation is there is a 50 per cent premium for compensation for injuries incurred overseas. Yet for serious injuries—that is, a permanent impairment over 80 points—the compensation is the same. Quite frankly, the sooner we get rid of this discrimination of benefits based on service the better. I know from the Senate committee hearings in 2004 that this is also the view of most ex-service organisations.

I am prompted to raise the widows pension matter again, sadly, for much the same reason as I did some years ago. On Sunday, 27 August the Sunday Telegraph led with a shock-and-horror headline across its front page. The headline decried the circumstances of a recently widowed lady whose husband had been killed in Afghanistan—as we all know, a very sad set of circumstances, one in which we all sympathise and respect the emotions of loved ones. Nevertheless, the journalist concerned took flight with what can only be described as an ill-informed article. There was little mention of the facts. That waited for the next Sunday edition, and it was then still incomplete. The shock of it all was described as ill-treatment of the bereaved and the poverty of her financial circumstances. The facts were not allowed to get into that mostly alarming story.

Overall, the article created an immediate impression of an uncaring government and a widowed mother in great personal distress. It was quite a pathetic story in two senses—first, because many others in the media grabbed the story without asking questions, proceeding down the same crude, sensationalist road without interest in the facts or the sensitivities of the widow concerned or her family. The facts, of course, are something else. The second reason is that the widow, still grieving the loss of her husband, did not deserve to be made the subject of so much attention. I have no doubt here the intervention was well motivated, not to complain but to point out just how messy the current system is—and she was right to do so. Governments, I am afraid, are on a hiding to nothing in these matters, simply because the factual information is very personal and very private. That privacy must be respected—a value, it must be said, many in the media choose not to share.

Let me again set out the facts about a defence widow’s entitlements under the new Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. First, there is a lump sum paid immediately. That lump sum is indexed annually and currently set at $122,742. It is tax free, but after the age of 40 it reduces. That is paid immediately upon death by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I understand the salary of the deceased paid at the time of death continues for four pays. It continues at the rate of pay for the deployment but excluding the deployment allowance. Then the bereaved has a choice of a widows pension or a lump sum.

The current rate of war widows pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act is $339.50 per week. The lump sum is an actuarial equivalent of the pension depending on the age of the bereaved and reducing after age 30. For example, for a 30-year-old widow that would be a lump sum of $518,717. The choice is the pension on the one hand or the lump sum on the other. To help in making that decision and other financial decisions, $1,472 is available for advice of the kind sought by the particular person. In the case of dependants, there is a lump sum of $73,645 each, plus a pension of $81 per week. On top of that, there is educational support for each dependant of $223 per year for primary school. That payment rises to a maximum of $371.40 a fortnight per student child over 18 in homeless circumstances. Next there is a funeral benefit of almost $10,000, and of course a gold card for free medical care for life.

But that is not the end of it. Like all superannuated employee dependants, there is a reversionary pension of approximately two-thirds of the expected member’s pension. There is also the return of all personal contributions plus interest. I have no idea what that might be and we are not entitled to know. Suffice it to say that it would be a reasonable sum. It could be worth several hundred thousand dollars depending on length of service. That is a standard death benefit. Then there is life insurance which is available to everyone deployed. The sensible take it, the gamblers do not—they strangely think they might be bulletproof.

If the inference of the media is that this is miserly, then I do not think anyone is in a position to pontificate. I certainly do not know what appropriate compensation is for the loss of a loved one is or how it might be calculated. The economic parameter might be easily calculated, but the future of the widow cannot be. The final point is that we do not know and cannot know all of the circumstances. Yet not knowing that and not being able to know that does not prevent the sensationalism of the media. What I do know is that this package is no doubt the most generous in the world. It is certainly way beyond any workers compensation scheme.

I fear that the widow in this case may have been genuinely seeking to make input to a current review which is underway. I suspect she may have been very emotional, as one would expect, and may have received poor advice. She may not have understood the complexity of benefits and one readily understands how that would occur at such a difficult time. Yet this difficult set of circumstances did not at all faze the journalist who swooped on a gory story at her expense. If there is a remark to be made here, it is that the system is unnecessarily complex. Grieving widows with children to care for inevitably find these matters difficult. Organisations like Legacy do a wonderful job of helping them, but the sums of money are large and whole lifetimes have to be planned in a short time frame. Children’s needs have to be predicted. Houses have to be purchased. New arrangements have to be made. In this case there is a custody matter to be settled and a new birth is imminent.

Again in these circumstances we see the risks of the relationship between Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, both administratively and in policy responsibility. The welfare of so many ADF personnel seems to be mashed across this departmental chasm once they transit from service. The minister has sought a review. However, it is possible in my mind that across this divide the widow’s care may well have been mismanaged. One day we might get it right. We seriously need to rearrange the functionality assisting people leaving the services, providing a seamless transition which is not divided between institutional stovepipes.

Mr President, I hesitated to raise this issue, but when generous benefits and care for the bereaved are misrepresented, as they have been, something needs to be said. I simply hope that in the future the media might take a little more care in getting the facts correct.