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

I seek leave to move business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Veterans' Children Education Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Instrument 2014, made under subsections 117(2) and (3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, be disallowed [F2014L00257].

That the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Determination 2014, made under subsections 258(4) and (5) of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, be disallowed [F2014L00256].

These two motions will disallow the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Determination 2014 and the Veterans' Children Education Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Instrument 2014.

I can scarcely believe that I need to do this. The ALP is incredulous—and I repeat incredulous—that this government would be small-minded enough to cut small income support bonus payments to the children of war veterans. We all know what this is about. It is a small-minded, mean-spirited attempt to make a political point about the MRRT, using children of veterans who have performed the highest form of public service—that is, they have borne arms and put themselves in harm's way in the service of our country. This is pathetic. In fact, it is more than pathetic; it is despicable.

Labor are deeply committed to keeping in place these income support bonus payments to the children of war veterans. We make no apology for that and we make no apology at all for going in to support our veterans and their families. Our aim is to keep in place income support bonus payments to the children of war veterans, which the government is so callously determined to cut. These disallowance motions will void the repeal of those payments to the children of veterans, some of whom are homeless or do not live at home. Some of them, tragically, are orphans.

Let us look at the callous cuts that the government is proposing to make: a total cost to the budget of $254,000. Seriously, we have probably spent that amount in getting people here to Canberra today to debate this matter. Let us look at what the payment was designed for. It was designed to help the children of veterans and their families meet the sort of unexpected and unwelcome expenses that arise. Under this scheme, each eligible veteran's child receives $215.60. While some of us may see this as a small amount, it can mean a great deal of difference to a veteran's child. It might mean a pair of new footy boots, a school trip, a new school blazer or some music lessons. What is the ADF community to make of this proposal?

If I were a mate of a dead or wounded digger and I watched this happen to my mate's kid, I would seriously begin to wonder what sort of small-minded, penny-pinching country we had put ourselves on the line for. I repeat: bearing arms is the highest form of public service bar none. Those of us who send these people into conflict in our name have an onerous responsibility. That responsibility is to ensure that the courage and sacrifice of these people is reflected in the care that we give them upon their return and the care and consideration that we show for their families.

With regard to Australia's veterans we must discharge this duty of care to them and their families and not count the cost—ever! If the government wants savings, might I suggest that it look to, for instance, the Prime Minister's paid parental leave scheme for millionaires. Believe me, there are savings aplenty to be found there. Anyone in this place knows that government members and senators are far from universally supportive of this piece of legislation. Today, coalition MPs and senators will have to decide whether they will support children of ADF veterans or back the Prime Minister's penny-pinching, mean-spirited and small-minded cuts.

The income support bonus is paid by the Department of Human Services and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to assist those students who rely on government allowance as a primary source of income. It provides funding for unexpected expenses. Students who receive an education allowance under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme are entitled to the income support bonus. Criteria for eligibility under the VCES guidelines include the following young people: those children of veterans who receive disability pension at various rates, depending on their level of disablement—for example, if they have suffered amputation or blindness; $215.60 for the child of an ADF member who has died and whose death was war- or defence-caused; $215.60 for the child of a veteran who was an Australian prisoner of war and who is now deceased; and $215.60 for students who are the children of Vietnam veterans or former members of a peacekeeping force.

The income support bonus for these students is paid twice a year—in late March and in September. This is the payment the coalition will cut, a yearly income support bonus of a measly $215.60 that goes to children of injured or killed diggers. In my home state—and yours, Madam Acting Deputy President Ruston—of South Australia, there are 77 children who will be affected by the scrapping of this payment.

Let me repeat: the cost of providing this assistance is just under $254,000 a year. That is less than 0.005 per cent of the Prime Minister's universally derided paid parental leave scheme for millionaires. It is a sad day when the government puts the saving of a measly amount of money ahead of the welfare of children of veterans, some of whom have paid the ultimate price in the service of our country.

The president of the New South Wales RSL, Don Rowe—not someone you would expect to line up with the Labor Party on many issues—has publicly stated his absolute disgust with this decision. He described it as 'a mean penny-pinching exercise'. I agree. It is mean and miserly. Legacy Australia said:

Legacy would be disappointed if any of the welfare payments are cut to the families of deceased or incapacitated veterans.

It is time for coalition MPs and senators to come out from behind the lines. Do they want to be part of a government that is happy to proceed with a $5.5 billion parental leave scheme but cannot find $250,000 for the children of veterans? They should ask the Prime Minister exactly when it was that he stood before the Australian people prior to the election and declared that he was going to cut support for the children of soldiers who had been killed or wounded in action. He did not say that.

The Prime Minister and the coalition love to drape the flag over themselves and stand up damp-eyed at Anzac Day dawn services in their electorates, yet this is how they treat veterans and veterans' families. It is shameful. In the context of an annual budget that runs into hundreds of billions of dollars, to do this to save $254,000 is mind-boggling. This is nothing more than a shameful political stunt by the government to underline its opposition to the MRRT. I urge the Prime Minister and the government to go and pick on someone their own size, not the children of deceased, sick or injured veterans.

This is a cruel and callous government, one that is happy to spend more providing paid parental leave to just four high-income earners than it would cost to keep up this support to the 1,200 children of ADF veterans. That is what the government will be voting for with this legislation—cuts to payments for the children of war veterans. The priorities of this government are simply wrong. It should scrap its unfair and unaffordable parental leave scheme instead of hitting low- and middle-income families.

The real Abbott government is now standing before us. We are seeing how callous its actions are and will continue to be. The Prime Minister is steadfast and was unapologetic even today about cutting these benefits to the children of veterans. He has indicated very clearly what his priorities are. We say that the families of our veterans deserve respect and gratitude. Taking away their modest payments is incredibly insulting.

I am proud to move these disallowance motions on behalf of the Labor Party. We can scarcely believe the government would go to so much effort to save $254,000. I call on senators opposite to join us in disallowing these regulations. Come on over. Cross the floor and demonstrate to ADF members, past and present, that you have the courage to stand up for what is right—as they had the courage to defend us and what is right in the theatres of war. Cross the floor. There are no IEDs, no landmines. You just have to cross the floor, Senator Edwards. All ADF members and their families know who you are and how you are going to vote.

This payment was intended to help cover unanticipated expenses. Families know how often these arise. On this side of the house, we know just how much difference a small amount of financial assistance can make to students and their families. If there is a bone of compassion in his body, the Prime Minister will reverse the decision immediately. He should reverse this callous decision. He ought to back down and ensure that the children of Australian war veterans get the support they deserve. We need to send a clear and unequivocal message today that this parliament in no way supports the government's attempts to deprive the children of veterans of this modest payment.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support these disallowance motions. Put simply, these motions would block the government's attempts to cut income support to the children of veterans. The Australian Greens are resolute in our support for these disallowance motions because we consider it crucial to support veterans and their families. The impact of military service extends far beyond its enormous impact on the Defence Force personnel involved. It has an impact on their spouses, their families and their children.

These motions would disallow two instruments—the Veterans' Children Education Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Instrument 2014 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Determination 2014. The Veterans' Children Education Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Instrument is intended to repeal a scheme which established an income support bonus for certain veterans' children. The second repeal instrument is intended to repeal a scheme which paid $211.60 per annum for unexpected expenses to recipients of education allowances under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.

As we have already heard, these payments only cost the government about $260,000 a year. They are payable to a very limited number of students who have met quite high eligibility requirements—students with veteran parents who died during war service or who have qualified for pensions at rates adjusted for their impairment. This amounts to only about 1,240 students across Australia who are eligible for these payments. The payments were introduced in March 2013 at a cost of $260,000 per year, funded by the mining tax. There is a good rationale for these payments from the Department of Veterans' Affairs: they are to help eligible children achieve their full potential in education or career training. On the other hand, the government's rationale for repealing the benefits is that it has decided to repeal the mining tax.

Many groups, very understandably, do not consider that to be good enough. As we have already heard, the New South Wales state president of the Returned and Services League, Don Rowe, said he was 'absolutely disgusted' by the government's decision. The Australian Greens too believe that it is a mean-spirited act to take money away from veterans' children with one hand and return it to the shareholders of wealthy mining companies—80 per cent of whom live overseas—with the other.

Rather than cutting support for veterans' children and partners, the Australian Greens have consistently been calling for greater recognition and support for families. Veterans' families are in a unique circumstance. They provide a huge service to us all but often end up disadvantaged by their loved ones' own personal military service. They move around a lot; their employment and schooling is disrupted; they endure long absences, sometimes with family members in situations of great danger and conflict. And then they pick up the pieces afterwards if their loved one is injured or affected badly by the experiences they have had. And, of course, some partners, children and families lose their loved one forever. So the Australian Greens know that families play a crucial role in caring for veterans, and we want to support families in this.

It is really as simple as this: if we are prepared to send people to serve in conflict on our behalf, it is only right that we treat them fairly and we look after them properly when they return. Military service extends beyond Defence Force personnel to their families, and the Greens are committed to caring for veterans' families. The income support bonuses to be repealed by these instruments are inexpensive, practical ways to benefit veterans' student children in difficult circumstances. There is no rationale for taking these away.

As the Australian Greens spokesperson for veterans affairs, I have met extensively with the partners and families of veterans; I have spoken to wives, partners and offspring; and I have heard firsthand many stories about the long-term and debilitating impacts of war and war service. I have heard accounts, from myriad sources, of veterans suffering for years without diagnosis or treatment, with conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder or other disorders that make life a misery for them, and sometimes for their families as well.

I have heard the accounts of partners who have been disbelieved in the early years about the experiences they had living with their partners. I have heard about children cowering and hiding. 'Walking on eggshells' is a phrase I commonly hear because of the debilitating consequences on veterans who return from high conflict and danger. These accounts are actually alarmingly common.

Frequently I meet with partners and hear their stories. These are often heartbreaking stories about partners who have known their veteran partner since before they went into military service, and about the changes in personality and the changes in outlook that they have experienced over the years since then. I have heard that post-traumatic stress disorder can commonly manifest as depression, rapid and severe changes in mood and behaviour, terrifying nightmares, hypervigilance and, in some cases, violence. I have heard how some people end up self-medicating through alcohol or other drugs. These symptoms alone can have enormous impacts on veterans and their families.

There is clear evidence now that it is not just the health of veterans which is affected by military service; there are studies which show that there are significant health risks for veterans' partners and their families, relating to their caring role. Professor Brian O'Toole from the Brain and Mind Research Institute has reported that partners of Vietnam veterans have mental illnesses at levels 20 to 30 times higher than the general population. Similarly, in 2005 Dr Hedley Peach, of the University of Melbourne, reviewed various studies and reported that psychological disorders affect partners and children of veterans at substantially higher rates than the non-veteran population, and carry an associated risk of cardiovascular and other physical diseases.

Veterans' children are reported to be at risk of higher rates of various congenital birth conditions and health problems. Long-term studies show that being the partner or child of a Vietnam veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder is a predictor of suffering from a mental disorder which can in turn affect grandchildren. It is reported that suicide levels among veterans' children are up to three times higher than the rest of the Australian population.

The need to support veterans and their families with adequate mental health services and other supports is much broader than income support, and I look forward to working with the government on these complex issues. However, decent support with education and a livelihood for veterans' children is the least that we can do.

When I spoke about the mining tax repeal bill last week, I cited the payments under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme as prime examples of that bill's short-sightedness. The Greens want to strengthen the mining tax, not repeal it. We want to share the profits from our nation's mineral wealth among our community—the community that owns these shared resources and the community that contributes to the society that makes this mining and this wealth possible. This government's move to discontinue these payments to veterans' children, because it is hell-bent on repealing the mining tax, is mean-spirited and bloody-minded.

We demonstrate our values by the choices we make. We do not have an infinite source of revenue but we can choose to have the revenue that is available to us from things like sharing the wealth that is generated by our shared resources. So do not tell me that we do not have sufficient wealth in Australia—one of the most wealthy nations in the world—to properly look after those who are the most needy. Education, health, mental health—how we look after the most vulnerable is the sign of how civilised we are as a nation. In this case, we have a government that is choosing to look after its mates and to repeal the mining tax legislation—a decision that will directly see more money in the pockets of its wealthy mining company mates, wealth which is generated from the resources that we all own and that belong to all of us—and choosing, at the same time, to take away money from the children of veterans who have died or who are disabled.

The Greens took a fully costed proposal to support veterans' families to the federal election last year. We know that, as a community, we owe the partners and families of veterans a huge debt. Government decisions have sent their loved ones to serve on our behalf, as a nation, into hazardous and often highly distressing situations. So it is only right that we care for them properly and care for the families who support them.

I would just like to give an indication of some of the initiatives that we developed, took for costing and took to the election. These were based carefully on the listening I have been doing over a period of years with veterans and their families. We would allow children of veterans who are acting as a carer for their veteran parent and the parents and siblings of veterans killed in service to access counselling through the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service. The provision of counselling services is a tangible way to support them. We would grant bereavement payments to partners who have separated from their veteran partner where it is established that the veteran's mental ill health played a part in the separation. This initiative would recognise the unique pressures that veterans' partners experience through living with a veteran, which can affect their lives or their relationship and are often directly attributable to the military service.

Our initiative would have increased funeral benefits under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 from $2,000 to $4,000, subject to review every five years to keep up with increasing costs. Our initiative would make the Department of Veterans' Affairs the responsible department for assessing the eligibility of veterans' carers for the Centrelink carer allowance, because it is that department that has a much better understanding of the nature of the condition experienced by veterans and the consequences and effects of caring for someone with that condition by their partners.

We would change the current situation regarding carer allowance so it is no longer cancelled after the veteran has been hospitalised for six weeks, which requires partners and carers to reapply. We would review the carer supplement every five years to ensure that the payment is adequate. We would increase veterans' home care respite services to 260 hours per year. That is merely 10 hours per fortnight, but I have heard time and time again from partners of veterans that that precious 10 hours—when they are looking after a veteran and often cannot leave the house or, if they can leave the house, often cannot do so with any certainty that they will be able to stay away without getting the call that they are required back home—would give them the chance to go and get a haircut, to go and have a cup of coffee with friends, to see family or to do some shopping.

We would also establish and maintain a jobs for Defence families website that would assist Defence families—who are often uprooted and moved around—and their partners to find employment with people who have an understanding and a respect for the Defence Force, so that they can be partnered up or given the opportunity to find out about employers who would make jobs available for them. I have been told the nomadic existence, in some ways, that veterans and partners experience is one of the great pressures on veterans' relationships. We would fund the Defence Community Organisation to provide enhanced induction and support seminars for Defence families before their loved one enters Defence service and also when they are leaving, so that they can be alerted to the things to look out for and be advised about the programs and assistances that are available for them.

So the Australian Greens oppose the repeal of the mining tax because, if the tax were implemented properly, it would share the wealth from our minerals among the community and it could fund worthy projects and initiatives just like those that I have outlined. So we are supporting this disallowance motion, because it is just not good enough to take away benefits for veterans' children just because this government is intent on repealing the mining tax. On behalf of the Australian Greens, I will continue to advocate to care properly for the people who do military service on our behalf and for the families who support them.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this government's shameful plan to cut the Department of Veterans' Affairs income support bonus. This payment supports the children of service men and women who have died or have been seriously injured while serving in the Australian Defence Force. Labor is against this government's plans to take away this measure from the children of ADF personnel. Labor is proud that we provided the income support bonus while we were in government. I note that Labor's opposition to the MRRT bill in the Senate has allowed another payment of this very support just this week. It is a payment that would not have been made if the MRRT bill had passed.

This motion makes clear that, even if the government succeeds in removing the minerals resource rent tax, we will continue to fight for the income support bonus. What we are talking about here is $250,000 a year in the budget. That is about $215 per child of a deceased or injured member of the ADF. It is not a huge sum of money, but it is an acknowledgement of our commitment to look after the families of our ADF men and women.

To be honest, I am genuinely surprised that I need to speak on this. It had never occurred to me that a government would want to do this—stripping money away from the children of veterans. I find it inconceivable that any government would be so heartless as to cut income support to the children of service men and women who have died or been injured while serving their country. There are 1,200 children in Australia who will be affected by this cut—1,200 children who will miss out on about $215 a year.

RSL officials, as has been mentioned, have described these cuts as a mean-spirited, penny-pinching exercise that will hurt Defence families. Mean-spirited and penny-pinching—I could not have put it better myself. What makes these heartless cuts even more galling is that the they only save an estimated $250,000. That is all: $250,000.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection of 'shame' because that is exactly what it is. I will give those opposite some free advice: if they want to save $250,000, they could sack their mate Tim Wilson from the Human Rights Commission or, better yet, just cut Ziggy Switkowski's salary down from four days to three days a week—two simple opportunities—or even not reintroduce knighthoods and damehoods, which appears to be today's priority of Mr Tony Abbott's government. What an extraordinary lack of judgement and priority by this government. It is actually true. He held a press conference and actually said it. On the day that the government wants to take away $250,000 or $215 a year away from the families of veterans, he wants to spend money and time prioritising the reintroduction of knighthoods.

The people of Australia and ADF families will not thank Mr Abbott for this surprise. He promised before the last election that his would be a government of no surprises. If you want to save $250,000, do not take it from the children of injured or killed ADF personnel. These payments are made twice a year and provide funding for unexpected expenses. These payments help with expenses like textbooks, schoolbags, uniforms, school excursions or a new set of shoes for netball or boots for footy.

The Labor Party has long supported ADF families. We have supported them because we understand that ADF members do a tough job. We understand that by supporting their families we ease their burden. Our country takes ADF personnel away from their families for months or years at a time. We ask them to do a tough job in tough conditions. We look after their families so that our ADF personnel can get on with their job without worrying about their wives or husbands and their children they have left behind.

We understand that Defence families do it tough. We understand that while they are away, often in harm's way, their family is at home taking kids to school, paying bills and going to work. Our service men and women do an amazing job. They do an amazing job because they have the support of their family. They do what the government asks of them and they do it without question.

The men and women of the ADF go to dangerous places like Afghanistan, Iraq, East Timor, and the Solomon Islands to defend the security of our country and to help our friends and allies. They go to places like Aceh, the Philippines, South Sudan and Port Moresby to help those in need. Right now, ADF personnel are flying over and sailing through the southern Indian Ocean looking for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, which went missing two weeks ago. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my thanks for the work that they are doing. All of us are proud of their efforts and the work many Australians are doing to support the search mission. This includes not only the men and women of our Defence Force but also the officials of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Federal Labor fully supports their efforts. We are grateful for their efforts and the world is grateful for their efforts.

Sometimes ADF personnel are put in harm's way and they do not come home. Sometimes they go to these places and they are so seriously injured that they can no longer work. Do not these men and women, along with their families, deserve this payment? I believe they do. Labor believes they do and that is why we introduced this payment in government and why we are moving this disallowance motion today.

The income support bonus was not the only support that Labor provided to ADF families when we were in government. We put all the groundwork in place and fully budgeted for the National ADF Family Health Program. This program will provide gap payments for free GP visits for the families of ADF members and provide $400 a year towards specialist health care services. This ensures that the health and welfare of ADF families are being looked after. Labor was proud of this policy and was pleased to see that planning and preparation led to a trouble-free introduction. This policy will cost $103 million over the forward estimates and will provide services to around 71,000 ADF dependents.

Labor is committed to providing the best Australian-made equipment to the ADF and that is why it had a plan to bridge the valley of death. In the shipbuilding industry, Labor had plans to keep thousands of highly skilled workers on the job in the shipbuilding industry by bringing projects forward. This would have ensured that we had the knowledge, skills and infrastructure in Australia to undertake these big projects like the future frigate and future submarine projects, which I know are very dear to Senator Farrell's heart. That would be thousands of Defence industry families that would not lose an income under Labor's plan. This is in stark contrast to what the government are doing now. They are sitting on their hands, they have been in government for six months and all we have heard from them so far are empty promises and empty rhetoric. The minister needs to stand up to his cabinet colleagues and ensure that the valley of death in the shipbuilding industry is bridged so that our shipbuilding industry has a bright future.

I mentioned earlier that I was shocked that any government could seek to take away this small payment to help the children of killed or injured ADF servicemen and women. Perhaps, I should have seen it coming. This is after all a defence minister whose first action as a minister was to cut the pay and conditions of serving ADF personnel in the Middle East, including Afghanistan. The minister cut their allowance to the tune of $19,000 a year and now he wants to cut payments to the kids of ADF veterans as well. This is a disgrace, and the Senate should not stand for it.

This is a government that is happy to stand up in front of Liberal Party banners on Defence Force bases but refuses to stand up for ADF veterans and their children. That is right, Mr Acting Deputy President. Just in case you had forgotten, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Tony Abbott, stood up in front of a Liberal Party South Australian campaign banner—

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

It didn't help them.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

at RAAF Base Edinburgh just two days before the South Australian election. As my South Australian colleague next to me, Senator Farrell, has made the point, it did not help them in the end. They trash convention and trash and embarrass our military just for some cheap political point-scoring on an Air Force base. He stood there on this base next to the still Liberal opposition leader, Steven Marshall, in front of a Liberal Party banner. The banner included the Liberal Party logo, Liberal Party slogans and the Liberal opposition leader's Twitter handle. This was on an Air Force base. I have written to the minister and asked for an explanation. I am still waiting to hear how he allowed this to happen and, more importantly, how he intends to make sure it never happens again.

Those opposite stand condemned by their decision to cut this payment to the children of killed or injured ADF personnel. There is no support for these cuts in the community. There is no reason for these cuts. This is one of those few times when those opposite just let their mask slip and we get to see what they are really about—mean spiritedness and penny-pinching. The Labor Party will not support the government's efforts to cut this important payment, and nor should anyone else in this chamber. The Senate should agree to this motion to ensure continued support for the children of killed or injured ADF personnel.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight in support of this disallowance motion. This disallowance motion aims to keep in place income support bonus payments to the children of war veterans, which the government has so callously and mean-spiritedly determined to cut. This disallowance motion will void the repeal of those payments to the children of veterans, some of whom are homeless or do not live at home and some of whom are orphans.

I do so because, quite frankly, I think those on the other side are probably not allowed to, but I am sure there are those on the other side who would seek to support this motion as well, because I cannot for a moment believe they are all so mean-spirited and callous to deny veterans' children the total of just over $215 a year—not a month, not a week, not a day, but a year. I have been absolutely astounded by this fact, because the yearly income support bonus goes to the children of injured and killed diggers, and, as I said, some are actually orphans. As has been said by previous speakers, over a year, it is a mere total of about $254,000.

In my home state of Tasmania, there are children who will be affected by the scrapping of this payment. I have recently employed on my staff and ex-Defence veteran who has had some conversations about this precise issue. He is very concerned about some of the children of his colleagues from when he was in the Defence Force in regard to this matter. I am not going to take too long, but I really want to stand up and speak about this

As I was saying, the cost of providing assistance is a total of around $254,000 a year, and that is less than 0.005 per cent of Mr Abbott's universally derided Paid Parental Leave scheme for millionaires. That is also much more than some people get paid for being on the board of a water company and only doing a couple of weeks work. Let me point that out: you might be on the board of a water company and only have to do a couple of weeks work and you could receive just about the same amount. So it is a sad day, I think, when the government puts the savings of a measly amount of money ahead of the welfare of children.

Everybody in this place knows that I have a longstanding interest in the welfare of children. Be it just over $200 a year or be it $20,000 a year to children who deserve it, it is a very important issue to me, and I know it is to a number of other people as well. Prior to the election, Mr Abbott said the government would promise to repeal the MRRT and the benefits it was intending to fund, but I think he was very sneaky. I do not think he actually pointed out to anyone that veterans' children who receive assistance under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme would lose their annual payment of about $215 a year. I do not think they knocked on anyone's door and said, 'If you're a child of veteran, you will lose this money.' So I think there has been a sleight of hand and a bit of sneakiness going on in regard to this issue.

I think Mr Abbott needs to explain why he is doing this and why he is cutting these payments. As I said, it contrasts quite a lot with a number of other issues—certainly with the government's willingness to pursue a generous paid parental leave scheme offering payments up to $75,000. The annual cost of payments to veterans' children is less than the cost of providing four high-income earners with paid parental leave under Mr Abbott's proposed scheme. Why does the Prime Minister thinks that four women on higher salaries are more important and more worthy than 1,200 children of war veterans? I just do not get it. I think there are a lot on the other side who are probably embarrassed by this. I can tell you that, if I were on that side and my government had done something like this, I would be more than embarrassed; I would be taking it up to the leader and getting them to change their mind on it.

A number of people have made comment in regard to it. The Executive Director of the Defence Force Welfare Association, Mr Alf Jaugietis, said—and I quote—that he 'was "bloody stunned" and would seek clarification from the minister's office over the decision'. He also said:

… to target kids, and only about 1,200 of them, over something that costs so little, seems … petty to us …

Even that interesting person over in the other place, the member for Fairfax, Mr Clive Palmer, 'foreshadowed an obstacle to the government's repeal of the mining tax', declaring that it will not come at the expense of income support to orphan children or war veterans. The payment to veterans' children—which has an overall price tag for the government, as I said, of $250,000, give or take a few dollars—is to be one of the casualties, I think, of the mining tax repeal package. Mr Palmer 'threatened to block the repeal if the payments are axed', so he was very serious about it. He told Radio National on Thursday:

They'll just have to take it out or they won't have any change …

Mr Palmer also said that he thought scrapping the payment was 'a crazy thing to do'. The New South Wales RSL president, Don Rowe, also publicly stated his absolute disgust with the decision. He described it as 'mean-spirited' and 'a mean penny-pinching exercise'.

This is a callous act from the Abbott government; there are no two ways about it. I think coalition MPs and senators need to decide whether they will support the children of ADF veterans or they will back Tony Abbott's callous cuts to the assistance these children so richly deserve. They need to be, as I said, standing up to Tony Abbott on behalf of the children of war veterans, not voting to cut their payments.

In summing up today, I am so flabbergasted by this that I really find it a bit hard to put into words what I really feel because I know I probably need to watch my language, and it might get away from me if I do not contain myself. It is unexplainable to me why the government would go down this road. It is completely incomprehensible—

Senator Urquhart interjecting—

Thank you, Senator Urquhart, it is. It is completely incomprehensible. It is mean. It is nasty. It is callous. The adjectives could go on, and I probably would never end the adjectives about what I think about this case, but I strongly believe that the families of our veterans deserve the respect and gratitude that we should give them. I do not think they should be insulted by callous acts like this. I also firmly believe that we have the responsibility to support those children.

To anyone in this room, I would imagine that $215 a year is probably not that much money. I am sure someone on that side will probably say how many milkshakes or cups of coffee you could buy with it, because that has been known to be said before about the cutting of funding. It is not that much money. This issue has been so callously brought on, and Mr Abbott is so firm and so determined not to backtrack, because he made this promise to repeal the MRRT. Well, Mr Abbott, you are going to have to do something. It is not on. This is not what Australia is about. This is not the Australian way.

I think we all have the responsibility to support those children, whose fathers and mothers have given their lives for our country, so I urge those on the other side to really take it up to Mr Abbott. I am not sure when their next caucus with him is, but I would be getting on the phone if I were some of those people on the other side. I know they are not all hard hearted and callous on the other side. I have worked for six years with most of those on the other side, and I have spent a lot of time with some of them. Some of those on the other side I can get on quite well with. So I know they are not—

Senator Farrell interjecting—

Did you say 'name them', Senator Farrell? No, I will not do that because it might put them—

Senator Kroger interjecting—

Oh, Senator Kroger wants to be named! Senator Kroger, if you want to be named, you go and take this up to Mr Abbott and you get him to change his mind, because I think it is really, really important that those on your side who do have a heart point out the miniscule amount of money involved, which is such a help to those children and those families. I will end it there, but I really did just want to get up—I have said more than a few words—and participate in this discussion because to me it is so important.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of these two disallowance motions. I rise as the daughter of a veteran who served as a commando on the Kokoda Trail. My father, now almost 92, has carried shrapnel embedded in and scattered throughout his shoulder and back for more than 70 years. I can tell you as his child that those scars that my father carried were not just carried in his back. He gave his youth for the service of Australia. He gave his youth fighting on the Kokoda Trail. So Legacy and the RSL, when I was a child, played a very, very important role in my life.

I go on now to talk about the current situation. I cannot imagine a more callous act from a government than taking such a small amount away from veterans' children. I was fortunate. My father came home from the war and went on to get married and have children, but that legacy of the years that he gave fighting as a soldier for Australia impacted on our family life. I cannot imagine the impact that losing a key loved one would have on a family. My father's injuries had an impact on our lives. When you kiss your loved one goodbye and then they do not come home, because they have given their life for Australia, the impact would be enormous. For the Abbott government to take money from the children of war veterans is absolutely shameful; and it is even more shameful because it is such a small amount of money for the government. But it is a significant amount of money for a family, because it helps with shoes, books or tertiary fees, and it is a tiny, little recognition that the parent's death meant something to the broader Australian community.

Again we have seen a government that simply cannot speak the truth, because last week the Prime Minister told my colleagues in the other place, 'No specific payments to veterans' families are being cut.' We know that is just not true. That is just not true. The Prime Minister can continue on saying, as much as he likes, that he has retained some of these schemes and that he has consulted with stakeholders on this issue. Fortunately for me, my father came home. But the families of mates of my father who did not come home relied on a bonus, a payment from the government, for their lost father; in most cases it was a father. Young Australians who were expecting to have some of their educational expenses met will now have to find the money for uni books or for fees to help fund their education or training out of their own pockets. Again I suspect that Legacy and the RSL will step up, but it is not appropriate for those organisations to be expected by the Abbott government to step up and fund such a minuscule payment.

The shadow minister for families and payments, Jenny Macklin, specifically asked the Prime Minister on 18 March precisely where and when the Prime Minister announced that this specific payment to the widows and orphans of war veterans would be cut. Despite the Prime Minister saying that he consulted widely with stakeholders, the RSL were not aware of this cut. Legacy is pleading with the government to reconsider. Young Western Australians were not consulted. They were not told that the cost of the assistance was the same as giving just four high-income earners the Prime Minister's extravagant and unfair Paid Parental Leave scheme. I would be ashamed as an Australian to think that we had cut this payment of $211 and a few cents per year to fund an extravagant parental leave scheme. I would be absolutely ashamed if we were to take that money from the children of veterans and give it to people who have still got a mum and dad in their family—people who have not suffered the ravages of war and who have not suffered a horrific and tragic death in their families. That would be the ultimate injustice.

The Prime Minister keeps telling us, 'If you want to fix the economy you've got to fix the budget first.' I am aware of the arguments from the other side—that this income support bonus was expected to be funded by the minerals resource rent tax and, without the MRRT, the government can no longer afford to supplement the income of the children of veterans—including some who are homeless. What rubbish, what nonsense and what selfishness to take away such a small payment, $211.20—a very, very small payment in the budget of a government but a payment that would really make a difference in the lives of the families of veterans.

This is nothing but bullying by the Abbott government. It is the bullying of a handful of children—just 1,200 children. For the Abbott government to say that it plays any reasonable part in fixing the budget whilst retaining the gold-plated parental leave scheme is just insulting. I would challenge the Prime Minister to stand up before one of the children from whom he is taking this benefit and explain why he is doing that. In my view, it amounts to reverse class warfare. And to be so unapologetic is callous. The cost of providing this assistance—as we have heard senator after senator say in this place today—is just under $254,000 a year. It is a sad day when the government puts their pledge to have the budget in surplus ahead of the welfare of children of veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Dave Spillman, President of the Kwinana Branch of the RSL in Western Australia said:

We’re shocked the Prime Minister would cut something that helps the kids of RSL members like this. When Western Australians fight for Australia, get injured for Australia and die for Australia, we don’t think it’s too much to ask for their kids to get a helping hand. The armed services are important in Western Australia and the Prime Minister should remember that. We call on Prime Minister Abbott to reverse this decision.

Presumably the RSL is the major stakeholder, but obviously they were not consulted. It certainly does not sound like the Kwinana branch or Dave Spillman or any of the executives in Western Australia were consulted. I agree with the RSL on this matter. As the child of a veteran, I can understand how they feel. But I too am absolutely disgusted with the government's decision. This cut is unnecessary, and $254,000 will not achieve the budget surplus the government believes the country so desperately needs.

Where are the government's priorities? I don't believe that if you want to fix the economy you have to fix the budget first. As a West Australian, I can think of a number of things we need before we need a budget surplus. How about a fast, efficient rail network? The RAC tells us in Western Australia that congestion is a massive cost to business. What about some roads that were promised linking eastern suburbs such as Ellenbrook and the Swan Valley? How about addressing the high cost of housing in Western Australia? What is the Prime Minister's answer when parents ask why schools in WA are not equal, why school performance is dependent on postcode and not funding and why some WA students exit school barely literate? The Prime Minister does not have an answer; the Abbott government cannot look WA parents in the eyes as it has no plan.

If the government places a priority on getting to surplus ahead of these matters and cannot even put aside $260,000 to help the families of those who have put their lives on the line for our country to gain access to education, how will it ever prioritise every other issue for Western Australians? My father gave his youth to this country serving as a commando on the Kokoda Trail. Thankfully, he came home, but for those children and those partners who lose their loved ones, taking this minuscule amount of money away from children who have suffered the most unimaginable loss is absolutely unthinkable and mean-spirited.

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

It would appear that there are no further speakers from the government side. I would like to close the debate and thank those senators who spoke in support of this motion, Senator Wright from the Greens and Senators Conroy, Bilyk and Lines, who all made terrific contributions. I hope that the speeches that I and my colleagues made have been sufficient to change the cold-hearted approach of the government in respect of this matter. I strongly urge senators opposite to join us and reject the Prime Minister's penny-pinching ways in respect of this matter and support our disallowance motion.

Question agreed to.