VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS AMENDMENT

(GOLD CARD EXTENSION) BILL 2002

Cognate bill:

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS LEGISLATION

AMENDMENT (FURTHER BUDGET 2000 AND

OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2002

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 March, on motion by

Mrs Vale:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr EDWARDS (Cowan) (9.29 p.m.)—The first of these bills being debated cognately in the House this evening, the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card Extension) Bill 2002, is the same as that submitted in the last parliament but which lapsed due to the prorogation prior to the election of last November.

At the outset, I state that the Labor Party does not oppose this bill because it is beneficial in nature and generally aimed to resolve some operational issues within the administration of the Veterans’ Entitlement Act, which parallels the Social Security Act in many areas to do with income support matters. I will not address the particulars of the bill, as they have been canvassed in the original debate and there is little to add.

I do, however, wish to highlight that part of the bill which deals with the changed treatment of compensation payments of an income support nature as they have been applied to date to couples. In short, the proposal to limit the offsetting calculations for such payments from third parties to the payee first, and only to the payee’s partner second rather than jointly as is currently the case, is both fair and equitable. The Centrelink policy relating to the offsetting of income support payments from third parties, such as insurance companies where compensation for lost income has been paid, is a very important element of general policy but it is one where there is blatant discrimination against ex-service people in receipt of disability pensions for their service related injury or illness. Equally, I should mention that some insurance companies also employ an offsetting policy which, depending on the terms of the policy, may also be discriminatory. But that practice is not the subject of this bill.

There is a major weakness in the way the means test, under the Social Security Act, works. For the record, while income support payments of the kind referred to in this act are included as income in the means test, other payments for pain and suffering are not. Strictly speaking, the latter is not income; it is compensation for the loss of life amenity and for the

Tuesday, 19 March 2002 REPRESENTATIVES P 1321

physical loss that has lowered the quality of life that otherwise might have been expected. This is also how the Veterans’ Entitlement Act works for those who are in receipt of a service pension—that is, their disability compensation is not counted as income in the means test, the same means test as in the Social Security Act. Yet if an ex-service man or woman is in payment of a benefit from Centrelink, such as the age pension or disability support pension, the disability pension paid to these veterans by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for service related injury or illness is so counted.

The Labor Party has seen this as a matter of some contradiction and unfairness for many years. As I said before, ‘discriminatory’ is probably a more appropriate description. Despite attempts to amend legislation such as this in the Senate the government has stonewalled and, despite assurances to the contrary, has done nothing about it. Well, we will keep trying and I can inform the minister that when this bill goes to the Senate we will again attempt to amend it to make provision for the exemption of ex-service disability pensions from the means test under the Social Security Act at the general rate. Here I point out that we are specific about the general rate of disability compensation, because that is the rate under which over 162,000 veterans receive a pension for their war and service related injury, as opposed to the above general rate where a much smaller number, some 26,000, are compensated as well for their loss of work ability. That part of the pension, while compensatory in nature, is more in the form of income support. In this latter group I refer to those TPIs on what is called the ‘special rate’ and to those on the ‘intermediate rate’. This is a very important principle to understand because it is a distinction drawn in modern workers compensation jurisdictions, in the social security jurisdiction and in the courts. It is a great pity that this government has allowed the veterans’ jurisdiction to get so out of sync.

This is not a new issue. We know that the government has done the costings and we believe that, as we have now refined it, the cost is likely to be less than $20 million a year. The beneficiaries, as we can best determine, are about 4,000 ex-service age pensioners - predominantly those who enlisted to serve in World War II but who did not leave the country, through no fault of their own, and up to another 500 younger ex-service people most of whom are TPIs. For these people the exclusion of their non-taxable, non-means tested Department of Veterans’ Affairs disability pension from the means test at Centrelink would result in immediate and substantial relief. A single person on a disability pension of 50 per cent with no other income, for example, would be better off by $10 per fortnight. For a single TPI pensioner in the same circumstances the increase would be $65 per fortnight. This would make an enormous difference, particularly for those with family responsibilities. This is how much this outrageous discrimination is costing ex-service people in need. Some thanks for their service!

I also remind the government that veterans and ex-service people who have served this country are not welfare beneficiaries. They are ex-service people, a large number of whom have been injured during their service, who now see themselves as being penalised. We have seen the government brazenly boast that they have spent an extra $2.6 billion on veterans during their term in office. We have seen $508 million committed in the last budget and in the election promises—all in the clear knowledge that this was an outstanding issue of merit. So let us not have budget stringency plea, or the much-bandied excuse—which is now well worn out—of competing priorities. This could be paid for from the cost of waste in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and unnecessary memorials, if the government was in the slightest bit serious about good policy, or about helping people in need. We know that the government has now erected a time-stalling device in the form of a review which will no doubt be used to keep this, and a whole range of other veterans’ issues, on ice for a year or two until the eve of the next election. However, the veteran community will not be fooled again. They remember the 1996 coalition pre-election commitment:

The coalition, whilst 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 Department of Social Security.

The second bill before us this evening is the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card Extension) Bill 2002, which increases the veteran population in possession of this much prized card by including all those with qualifying service over 70 regardless of where they were deployed, and those who were not already in possession from compliance with other eligibility criteria. The Labor Party also promised this benefit in the last election, so it suffices today to say we are happy to give it speedy passage in order that the processes can be put in train to have the cards issued by 1 July. Fitting the great respect with which we treat our veterans, the gold card is seen as a great source of comfort by veterans, particularly as they age and health care becomes more critical and costs mount up. Understandably this is always a worry, and great peace of mind is provided to those people who have the card as valuable insurance in case of need.

I think it is fair to say, though, that, whilst we support this extension, we are concerned at the rapidly increasing cost of veterans’ health care. This in no way is a comment upon veterans’ needs but reflects a deep concern we on this side of the House are developing as we see the exploding budgets of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs health program. Our spokesman in the Senate Senator Mark Bishop will be elaborating on this because it is clearly a major management issue which cannot be simply attributed to the ageing process or to escalating medical costs. It is indeed a management issue.

I do not intend to speak for much longer. We have indicated that we will not be opposing these bills, but I do think it is appropriate to make a couple of concluding comments. At the end of the previous bill which passed through this House we had the parliamentary secretary standing at the table, thumping his

P 1322 REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 March 2002

chest and saying, ‘We have delivered; we have delivered; we have delivered on a whole range of issues.’ They have not delivered when it comes to the veteran community. I want to go back to the 1996 commitment which the coalition made in relation to those veterans who have their Department of Veterans’ Affairs benefits counted as income against the Social Security Act. This is what the coalition said in 1996:

The Coalition whilst 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 Department of Social Security.

I simply ask the government: when are you going to deliver to the veteran community on this commitment which was made in 1996? It is on the record how the government have tried to let that particular commitment slide through, but there are some very good and very active people out there in the veteran community who are determined that the government will not get off the hook on this particular commitment. I want to pay tribute to people like Blue Ryan from Western Australia, who is the National President of the TPI Federation. Blue himself is a TPI pensioner. He is not always well and not always healthy, but he is always in there fighting for his membership and fighting to improve the benefits that TPI veterans rightly enjoy because of the service that they have given this country and because of the health ramifications of that service.

It breaks my heart to see some of these young SAS veterans who at the age of 35, 36 or 40 are on a TPI pension. If they do not have qualifying service, they have a fairly severe impediment when it comes to getting a reasonable income. These are young men who served their country well. They are young men in their late 30s or early 40s who only have a TPI pension to look forward to for the rest of their lives. I want to congratulate in particular the CT group, the counter-terrorist group, for the tremendous work that they have done in keeping their issues alive and in keeping up the fight to have their benefits recognized and improved.

It is incumbent upon this coalition government to put into practice the commitment which they made back in 1996. I was not intending to make these comments, but I must say that the chest thumping of the parliamentary secretary during consideration of the previous piece of legislation when he stood at the dispatch box and proudly boasted about how the coalition have delivered prompted me to say that they have not delivered in relation to veterans—and it is time that they did. The opposition does not oppose these bills.