Senator Bartlett

THIS is an extract from Hansard in 1999 when Senator Bartlett raised the subject of anomalies in the Centrelink treatment of disability pensions.

We can see here that the LIBERAL HOWARD GOVERNMENT stonwalled Bartlett and let the whole thing slip and slide away. If you think the new HOWARD GOVERNMENT is going to treat you any better u must be a believer like Marliny, EddieG and TPI Bob. I think they are probabaly members of the Liberal party anyway.

Estimates' Senate Committee on Community Affairs

9 February 1999

Re: Disability Pension

Senator Bartlett: I want to ask a question about a joint review - and I have received a letter from the minister on this just recently - that was undertaken with your department and the Department of Veterans' Affairs about the treatment of disability pensions under the Social Security income testing arrangements, as against the Veterans' Affairs disability pension, and an anomaly that exists between the way the two departments treat those pensions.

The minister kindly informed me that the review was an internal one. In the absence of being able to see the report itself, I was wondering whether you could tell me what sorts of issues the report considered in relation to that discrepancy between the two payments. Was it simply just a cost factor that precluded the government from wanting to address that issue?

Senator Newman: The cost factor is obviously an issue. I understand it was a substantial amount of money, but I cannot recall the amount right now.

Senator Bartlett: It was $21 million.

Senator Newman: Thank you. It was a review by the officials of the DVA and my department. They were all people of have a great understanding of the issues involved. It is something that Mr Scott and I are really concerned to pursue, but at this stage we have not been able to. It is not a dead issue; that is all I would say.

Senator Bartlett: I was going to ask whether it would be fair for me to assume that the government decided that it was not going to be able to pursue its policy commitment in that regard, but you are saying that you are still seeing what can be done?

Senator Newman: Yes. I would not want anybody to start breathing heavily thinking that the government was rushing to write the cheque straight away, but I think it would be desirable to move to that as and when it can. But, as you jut spelt out the sum of money, it is not something you do lightly.

Senator Bartlett: I appreciate that you would need to get reports for your eyes only, but it seems to me that this sort of report would not contain anything overly sensitive. Obviously, it gives costings but those sorts of costings are useful for all of us to see.

Senator Newman: I think it was a report that was prepared essentially for the two ministers for presentation to cabinet.

Senator Bartlett: So it would outline other political considerations apart from just costs, et cetera?

Senator Newman: Yes.

IN JUNE 2000 SENATOR BARTLETT proposed an amendment to the VEA AND SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. Senator Bartlett's amendments where killed by the LIBERAL PARTY in the SENATE.

WHAT HOPE do veterans have when the HOWARD GOVERNMENT has twice killed legislation that is asking the government to do what the TPI Federation wants done. Disability pensions not be classed as income by CENTRELINK.

ONLY TRUE BELIEVES OF THE LIBERAL HOWARD GOVERNMENT COULD THINK that there will be any gains made by TPI's from thepresent administration.

SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS) BILL 2000: In Committee

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.33 a.m.) -I move the following request for an amendment:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1)Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 6-Certain income tests for veterans

166 At the end of paragraph 8(8)(y)

Add:

or (x)a pension under Part II or Part IV of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; or

(xi)a temporary incapacity allowance under Part VI of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; or

(xii)a pension payable because of subsection 4(6) or (8B) of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986; or

(xiii)a payment (other than a pension referred to in subparagraph (x) or (xii)) that is a payment in respect of incapacity or death resulting from employment in connection with a war or war-like operations in which the Crown has been engaged;

This amendment is in regard to the treatment of the wartime disability pension under the social security income testing arrangements as against the veterans' affairs arrangements and an anomaly that exists between the way the two departments treat those pensions. It is a matter that I have chosen to attempt to address through this bill, which I think is as close as we could get to an appropriate bill, except perhaps the Compensation for Non-Economic Loss (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment) Bill 1999. But that has been sitting in the Reps for about 18 months now, so I have chosen to move it as an amendment to this piece of legislation.

The current situation is that the Department of Veterans' Affairs already exempts disability pensions from the income test applying to the service pension, whereas the Department of Family and Community Services counts the disability pension as income in the means test on the age pension. This amendment aims to exclude wartime disability pensions received from Veterans' Affairs from the income test for payments under social security. The veterans disability pension is presently included in the social security income test, in contradiction to the fact that this pension is paid to veterans as compensation and is part of the special obligation owed to veterans. It is a compensation paid for disabilities incurred in war service. In some instances we are talking about people who are totally and permanently incapacitated from their war related injuries.

I am sure all parties are aware of this anomaly. The Democrats are certainly aware of the coalition promise before they came to government in 1996 to review the assets test on the war service pension. The coalition document entitled Veterans: for those who served, released before that election, stated:

The Coalition while maintaining existing entitlements will also review the apparent anomaly existing where a Disability Pensioner has that benefit counted as income when receiving a pension from the DSS.

It was DSS at that time. So it is an issue that the coalition certainly has been aware of since before they came to government. That commitment was to review, and I know the government has conducted that review. I am not sure that just telling veterans that `we have conducted a review so that is the end of the issue' necessarily satisfies their concerns about removing this anomaly. In fact, I am sure it does not.

In 1998 I made a representation through correspondence to both the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs asking for disability pension to be exempted from the social security income tests. I also requested a copy of the report prepared by the ministers, the joint review that was part of that election promise, which was undertaken by the then Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Both ministers responded similarly to my letter, declining to provide a copy of the departments' report, on the basis that it was an internal one and for ministerial consideration only. They also gave no indication of any government moves to actually address the inequity and anomaly.

At the Senate estimates Community Affairs Legislation Committee in February of last year I questioned Minister Newman on this review, and again the minister declined to release the report. I asked the minister if it was simply a cost factor that precluded the government from wanting to address that issue-the cost of the change suggested then was estimated at $21 million-and the most positive thing that the minister said at that time was that it was `not a dead issue'. It certainly is not a dead issue for the Democrats. And, as Senator Schacht indicated, it is an issue that he has raised and pursued as well. It may not be a dead issue for the government, but there is so little action happening that one would be excused for concluding that it is certainly in deep freeze.

In light of the continuing inaction in this area, I have drafted this amendment on behalf of the Democrats which aims to exempt the disability pension from the social security income test. Because it is an issue which has been around for so long, and I think all members of parties who are involved in these issues will be well aware of it, I do not think it is necessarily something that I need to explain much further. But I think it is important to put on the record the views of veterans about it because certainly, as someone who is also the veterans' affairs spokesperson for the Democrats, it is not an issue I pretended to have particular expertise in before taking up that position, although I might say my research on the issue does have a lot of expertise and experience in it. Obviously, as part of having responsibility for that portfolio for the Democrats, you consult with relevant people and with veterans and veterans' organisations, and this issue and this anomaly are almost inevitably at the top of things that get raised, usually amongst the first one or two things. I think the fact that everybody acknowledges it is an anomaly, that they have done so for many years and yet nothing seems to have happened is a source of extreme irritation to many of them.

The aim of this amendment is supported by all the peak veterans' organisations, including the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Servicemen and Women, the RSL, the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council, the War Widows Guild, the Federated TB Ex-Service Association of Australia, the Limbless Soldiers Association, the Extremely Disabled War Veterans Association, the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia and the Vietnam Veterans Federation. I doubt there is a veterans group in the country that does not support the aim of this measure. I have also received many letters from individual retired service persons specifically on this issue. I will quote from one, mainly to put the issue in the context of individual people and how they are affected by it. One person wrote to me and outlined their circumstances in this way:

"I served five years during WWII including two active service squadrons, qualifying me for a Returned from Active Service badge, the Defence Medal, War Medal and Australian Service Medal but did not qualify me for a Service Pension.

... During the whole of my post war working life my war related disabilities caused me great pain and a great loss of income. At the age of 59 years I was forced to retire, causing me to lose most of my superannuation and some of my long service entitlement.

Not being eligible for a Service pension I was forced to live on our savings until I was eligible for a Social Security pension. Because of further health problems I applied for a disability pension gradually increased to 100% but as you know social security take a large portion of that. Being now 80 years old I am trying to save a little money so that my wife will not be left in poverty should something happen to me."

One of the few differences between the service pension and the age pension is its treatment of the war disability pension in terms of treating it as income if you are on the age pension. It is a situation that causes hardship. It is an obvious and acknowledged anomaly and, given that it has been acknowledged for so long as an anomaly, I think it is about time that something was done about it. So I seek the support of all parties in this chamber in rectifying this measure and in addressing the concerns of many veterans around the country to finally address a problem that has been acknowledged and identified for many years.

SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS) BILL 2000: In Committee

The point that must be acknowledged first up is that, while this is an anomaly that successive governments have recognised, it has not been the top issue on veterans' lists of things that need redressing. Successive governments have attended to issues that were top priority for the veterans' organisations. When we came into government the top issue that needed redressing according to the ex-servicemen's association was the gold card for World War II veterans, and of course that has been implemented, as have a number of other things. The government has a number of reasons for opposing the amendment as it has been presented by the Democrats, including that it introduces more anomalies than it claims to address. I think Senator Bartlett would be very concerned about introducing more anomalies if his aim is to reduce one anomaly.

Unfortunately it is a crude and a simplistic approach to deal with a very complex issue. This amendment does not address the technical differences between the veterans and the social security systems. For example, veterans with service pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act administered by DVA and who rent will be disadvantaged because, although their disability pension is not counted in the calculation of their service pension, it is counted for calculating the amount of rent assistance. In other words, if they get more income from one element, they will have a reduction in rent assistance on the other hand. I do not know that the Democrats would be appreciated for achieving that success. By exempting disability pension entirely from the Social Security Act means test, veterans at Centrelink who do not have qualifying service and who rent will get a distinct advantage over veterans with qualifying service under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. I cannot believe that opposition parties are prepared to endorse that.

Senator Schacht -Say that again?

Furthermore, the amendment provides for Commonwealth or Allied veterans who receive a disability pension from their governments and also for Commonwealth or Allied war widows to be advantaged over those who receive income support payments from Veterans' Affairs. In other words, those veterans who are financially much worse off than the rest of the veterans will be disadvantaged, as compared with Commonwealth or Allied veterans receiving a disability pension from their governments or with Commonwealth or Allied war widows. I cannot imagine that that would be the priority that the chamber would expect.

As well as producing those anomalies, this amend-ment also confuses the treatment of benefits, such as the disability pension for veterans and the war widows pension. These are quite different benefits and they have different policy origins and different purposes. All these amendments are a poor attempt to address an anomaly that the government have always acknowledged. But we have also recognised that the veterans community have a number of issues that they want to see addressed. They are being addressed-and have been addressed over the years by successive governments, but largely according to the priorities of the veterans community of the time.

The final point I would make is that all these amendments entail significant costs. Senator Schacht might be interested to know that the sums have now been done, by the two departments providing information together. The cost would be in excess of $50 million per year. That is based largely on the following. The DVA disability pension exemption would cost in the order of $22 million. The overseas pensions exemption cost is unknown and cannot easily be determined. The widows pension exemption would be in the order of $30 million. Putting those two together, that is $52 million; but I am advised that I must emphasise that those figures do not include administration costs. So the amendments do entail significant costs, in excess of $50 million per year.

The government has already assigned a high priority to other initiatives in the veterans portfolio-such as extending the eligibility of repatriation benefits to include service in South-East Asia between 1955 and 1975, and simplifying access to health care, as well as the gold card for World War II men and women over 70, as I have already mentioned. I do not think there can have been a senator in this chamber who has not, over the years, had a huge amount of lobbying from those people who felt utterly neglected by not having their service in South-East Asia between 1955 and 1975 recognised. That has been very important to a relatively small group of people, who did need to have their service recognised. The government do not have any reason to be ashamed of the treatment they have given to veterans in the 4½ years we have been in government. While recognising that there is an anomaly, as Senator Bartlett has mentioned, we do believe that we have shown our good faith with veterans. This measure is in the order of more than $52 million. I do not think it is reasonable to have this request attached to this bill by the Democrats, no matter how kind the heart behind their request.

SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS) BILL 2000: In Committee

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.49 a.m.) -There are two main thrusts to the minister's argument there. Firstly, I am certainly not suggesting that the government has done nothing on veterans affairs issues. There have been some positive measures undertaken by this government, including those that the minister has mentioned; and I have spoken of those myself in this chamber on other occasions and have acknowledged and supported those initiatives of the government. I do not think that that in itself should be used as a reason for not addressing this particular anomaly, however, by saying, `We have done these good things, and therefore people should be happy with that.'

I am sure the minister herself would acknowledge that there are still concerns and issues that the veterans community, as with any other part of the community, would still like to see addressed. I am sure that the veterans affairs minister is aware of those as well and is working on some of them. The fact remains that this is an area where there has not been action and where, to put it in a clearer context, the injustice of this anomaly has not been addressed. It is an issue that veterans organisations frequently raise. That may be because it is so obvious and so straightforward and so clearly unfair that it rankles so many people so much; or it may be because they cannot understand why what appears to be such a simple thing is so difficult to change.

This moves me on to the second part of the minister's argument, which is that the amendment, as put forward by me, is broader than the aim I am seeking to achieve. My staff were briefed by some people from the department last night and, as always, we are thankful for and welcome extra briefings from any department. I took further advice following that briefing and further consideration of the issues raised. I am sure that the minister can recall from her time in opposition the mechanisms by which we are able to put forward amendments: if you outline what you are wanting to achieve with a particular amendment-and it is pretty clear-cut and everyone understands what the aim and intention of this amendment is, as I have stated-you then go to the clerk who drafts amendments for opposition parties, and they then produce an amendment that aims to address the outcome that you put to them.

I am sure the government is aware that those clerks are extremely capable-I am sure it would not suggest otherwise. They also have an incredibly heavy workload and are, in my view, incredibly underresourced. That is an issue the minister might like to follow up in terms of assisting the drafting of amendments that are considered by this chamber. I certainly have confidence in the ability of the people that draft amendments. I know the government and the opposition are aware of the intent of this and that they are aware of the issue. If the department, with its rather larger resources at its disposal, can indicate wording that more precisely meets the intent that I am outlining, I am happy for that to be provided. Indeed, I would welcome it providing it, if it believes that it can be defined in a clearer and more precise way. In the costings she gave then, the minister outlined an initial part of the cost to be $22 million, which related to the disability pension. That sounds fairly similar to the $21 million she mentioned to me in an estimates committee a couple of years ago, so I am assuming that is part of it-the anomaly that I am talking about-that has been costed. I cannot believe that the veterans community would wear the suggestion, `This is an anomaly. We know it is there, but it is too complicated to fix through legislation. It cannot be done.' I am sure it can be done and, if the department believes that there is a clearer way for it to be done, I am happy for it to provide the wording.