Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I would like to share with the House the real-life impact some of these measures will have on veterans and their families, such as those from my own electorate of Forrest. To begin with I would like to acknowledge the courage, the loyalty and the commitment to our nation that our veterans display while serving in many theatres of war around the world. It was and is these men and women who fought for our nation, our beliefs, our freedoms and our security. We thank and acknowledge these people on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and honour the memory of their fallen mates for their ultimate sacrifice for our country.

The Prime Minister said on Anzac Day this year, ‘There is no higher calling than to wear the uniform of Australia.’ He thanked the veterans and their families for their services to Australia. I could not agree with the Prime Minister more. As a nation, we are indebted to these brave people and their families. Yet here we are in the House of Representatives of Australia with the Labor government proposing to reduce veterans entitlements.

Unless you have been to war, you cannot truly understand the effect fighting in a war has on an individual. The transition from life in a war zone to peacetime life is an immense challenge for many returning service personnel. Issues which arise include post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and suicide, as well as a raft of other emotional and/or mental illnesses—not to mention the impact of physical wounds. Furthermore, returning service men and women must relearn how to live within their family and their community—at times, no mean feat. They have to rediscover their family and try to integrate back into the lives of those they left behind. Not only that—veterans continue to live with their experiences whilst at war. It is no wonder these brave people encounter problems upon their return.

But it goes much further than just the individual. A veteran’s whole family must readjust as well. The family takes the strain of these mental, emotional and physical impacts that weigh on the veteran. Our continuing support for these families is crucial. The Labor government must not turn their back on our veterans and families after all they have done for this country and for us. Certainly those people who fought for our country in uniform should be recognised for the service they provided to this country. So too should their partners be recognised for supporting them, for the time they kept the family together while their husband or wife was actively serving away from Australian shores, and they should continue to be recognised for keeping their relationships together when our defence personnel returned home.

This is often underestimated. Consider the Vietnam vets specifically and what they endured both while they were away and when they came home—they were certainly not always the same person physically, emotionally or mentally as the one who went away. The strain on partners to keep those relationships together is very difficult to quantify, and I do not think it can be quantified. Most partners certainly tried to keep the relationship alive and the family unit together. However, some couples ultimately, after perhaps 30 or 40 years, came to the point where they could not support each other anymore and subsequently parted. Such a move is always hurtful to families and partners who have to start a new life. Some never cope and some never recover. Some hang on to their long relationships, never wanting to completely sever those ties or file for divorce.

The previous government did recognise the commitment and dedication that partners gave to veterans, with the payment of the partner service pension as an entitlement. After all that our veterans and their partners have endured on behalf of Australia as a whole, I am appalled that this government wants to change the eligibility rules for the partner service pension and cut out those very deserving partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouses. Currently, separated partners are eligible for the partner service pension until they divorce or commence a new marriage-like relationship. This is a fair and reasonable policy. But the Labor government’s proposal will cast aside those partners who are now into their middle years and currently do not reside with their veteran spouse for whatever reason—some of which I have outlined earlier. It will simply cut them off within 12 months of this bill becoming legislation.

The Rudd Labor government proposes that, from 1 January 2009, partner service pension eligibility will cease 12 months after the date of separation unless either partner commences a new marriage-like relationship beforehand. Partners who separated from their veteran spouse before 1 January 2008 will lose their partner service pension eligibility from 1 January 2009—three months away.

Many partners are ill equipped to enter the workforce. Many more have not worked outside the home for most of their adult lives, often because of the problems endured by the veteran in the family. They have often spent their lives working in the home, looking after their husband and children, happy to have the service years over, enduring whatever ailments their partner’s tour of duty has created.

This government is out of touch with real people and does not understand or respect partners of veterans who have served our country well. Indeed, these partners have actually saved the government a great deal of money by keeping their family units together for as long as they have, as well as supporting their husbands during a difficult period of their lives. There was no government recognition or assistance in those early years after Vietnam.

The government’s legislation is forecast to save $40.6 million over four years on this measure alone—that is, the government will take $40.6 million from those hands. Additional amendments proposed by the government will further erode veterans entitlements. This government intends to increase the age eligibility for the partner service pension, which was previously 50 years of age, to 58.5 years for women and 60 for men. There is also another proposed amendment that will allow partners to continue to receive the partner service pension from 50 years of age if their veteran partner falls into a new disability category. The government was shamed into this after receiving a backlash from the veteran community—and rightly so. Both these proposed changes to veterans entitlements were announced in the budget, and the government stated that the changes would provide gross savings of $77.8 million over four years. I would challenge this savings figure because I do not believe the government has taken into account the number of affected partners who will move onto other government income support through welfare.

I believe the proposed changes in this bill are too severe, unjust and unfair to married recipients of the partner service pension who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse. I would like to share with the House the plight of one of my constituents in my electorate of Forrest who is in a state of shock, distress and basically depression due to the extreme adverse financial impact these changes will have on her life. She is one of those ‘real people’. My constituent was married to a Vietnam veteran for almost 40 years. For the last four years she has been living apart from her husband. She had been married for just over 12 months when her husband was sent to Vietnam. When he returned, they tried to recapture their life and they looked forward to a long and happy marriage. But this was not to be.

When they married, they married for life and were determined to maintain a happy family for their three children. As her husband became more withdrawn and uncommunicative, their personal relationship suffered. Achieving a happy family home became almost impossible. My constituent was a stay-at-home mum. Her job was running the home and small farm, bringing up children and caring for her husband. When circumstances required, she undertook cleaning and other odd jobs to provide for extras and education for the children. Her veteran husband was eventually diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and, at 50 years of age, was classified a TPI and a service pensioner.

Without the social stimulation provided by employment, her husband became even more isolated. When the children left the family home, life became increasingly difficult for the couple. Their personal relationship deteriorated until there was little or no communication left between them. With the tension of silence too hard to take, they made the decision to live apart. This decision was not made lightly, as family was, and still is, of great importance to both parties. After so many years together, husband and wife now life apart and alone. As a result of having children together, however, they will always have a relationship. In 34 years of marriage, my constituent spent only one year with a husband who was not affected by war service. She has spent those years of her life living and working in difficult circumstances and, in many ways, she has suffered as much as her veteran husband. Her view of the reason for the change in eligibility—that is, ‘to ensure that a person’s income support entitlements are paid based on their own circumstances and not on a relationship that may have ceased many years ago’—is that it is not only appalling but also insulting.

In the four years that my constituent has lived alone, her entitlement has always been based on her own circumstances, and any income earned has been taken into consideration. During her married life as a full-time homemaker, she had very few opportunities to develop a career, and her limited paid employment was in unskilled areas such as cleaning and general farm work. And we must remember that she was living with a veteran with problems. Her lack of self-confidence from years of emotional deprivation makes the thought of being forced into retraining programs through Centrelink quite terrifying for her. My constituent is devastated that, at this time in her life—she is in her mid-fifties—when she has finally found some kind of quiet peace of her own, she will be forced to make a whole new life. After suffering a continual erosion of self-worth and rejection over many years, she cannot even begin to envisage her future.

I am most concerned about how many other women in circumstances like those of my constituent, who have suffered most severely in a relationship with a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, are going to cope with the loss of this entitlement. I would remind those opposite that we are dealing with people’s lives—real people. I believe these proposed changes to eligibility for partners, are unjust and unfair and show no respect for the deserving partners. Their veteran spouses may have gone to war for several years but, in some instances, veterans’ wives and partners have been suffering ever since. My constituent is one of the vulnerable real people affected by this change. I respect the veterans and their wives or husbands. I oppose the changes to the partner service pension for separated but not divorced partners, and I support the amendments moved by the member for Greenway.

See this speech in context