Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I am going to make a couple of comments with respect to the partner service pension issue, after following the debate in the Senate. This is to do with amendment (5). There are four main points that I would like to focus on. The first point that I would like to talk to is the question of consultation. It has been argued in the other place and also here by the opposition that this matter was not publicised. Here is a copy, firstly, of a press release which was released at the time of the budget and which clearly outlined these measures. I also have with me a copy of the latest edition of Vetaffairs, which on page 4 details the circumstances with respect to these particular changes. On the night of the budget, I briefed a number of ex-service organisation representatives in my office in person and also held a teleconference with a number of others to explain to them what we were doing. The next day, deputy commissioners of the department in each state capital briefed ex-service organisation representatives at the local level about what changes were made. So I reject and refute the claim that this was not publicised. It was well publicised.

On the question of the details of the impact, there are a couple of points that I would like to make. There is an argument that the financial position of someone on a partner service pension is such that it is particularly tough for them. In fact, I have to say to you that someone who is retiring on the service pension when that is all they have got is in a situation in which things are pretty tough—there is no doubt about that. I am not for one minute suggesting that it is easy. However, if you are not on the maximum partner service pension you do have income from other sources, and they have to be relatively significant to have any impact on decreasing your partner service pension in the first place.

I can inform the House that some data from the department in relation to the last 12 months shows that there were some 464 grants of the partner service pension for the period 17 May 2007 to 17 May 2008 for those who were not TPIs and who were not in a situation in which they had dependent children. Some 464 applications were received and accepted that would in fact be impacted upon by this particular change. I can inform the House that some 318 of those were in receipt of less than the maximum of the partner service pension. Only 146 were receiving the maximum rate. Some 318—more than two-thirds—were in a situation in which they had other sources of income. I am not for one minute suggesting that that means that their lives are easy, but it does indicate that their financial circumstances are somewhat better than those of someone solely on the service pension or the partner service pension.

Another point the government have made clear is that we are very conscious that the degree of disability an individual may have is something that relates to the circumstances of the partner, and that the carer’s role of a partner in these circumstances is very important. That is why we excluded partners of TPIs on the basis that a TPI is commonly understood to be a severely disabled veteran who is unable to work.

I also inform the House that, of the 464 applications received in the last year, 232 applicants were in receipt of absolutely no disability pension at all. Members would be aware that there are differing rates which use a 10 per cent gradient up to 100 per cent of disability pension, with respect to veterans affairs, and then there are above general rate pensions for TPIs and several other smaller categories. These 232 applicants were in receipt of absolutely no disability rate pension. In fact only 90 of those 464 were in receipt of 70 per cent or more of a disability rate pension. This would suggest that, overwhelmingly, the people affected here are not in a situation where they are required to be in a carer’s role, and I think that is very important to note.

Another argument put by the opposition was that when they made changes with respect to the age pension it was on a graduated basis. It has been said by others that this was not a retirement payment so there was a reason for that. Also, the graduation has occurred on the basis of the actual age of those who are applying. To use the 70 per cent rate of pension and above as an example, last year seven people aged 50 applied, three people aged 51 applied, seven people aged 52 applied, six people aged 53 applied and seven people aged 54 applied—and on it goes. This clearly indicates this is not a benefit that has been picked up at an early age by very many people because of their circumstances. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context