Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on a bill that amends legislation relating to family assistance, child support and veterans affairs. The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 provides three schedules for further budget measures and other measures affecting the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Veterans’ Affairs, and Human Services portfolios. Schedule 1 relates to the maternity immunisation allowance and aligns the maternity immunisation allowance with the National Immunisation Program regarding payment of the allowance. Schedule 1 also extends eligibility for the allowance to children adopted from overseas. These amendments will be reflected in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, referred to as the family assistance act, and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, referred to as the family assistance administration act, and will commence on 1 January 2009.

The second schedule amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and relates to the partner service pension entitlement. Schedule 2 is a budget measure that ceases eligibility for the payment of the partner service pension to those partners of veterans who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached age pension age. There are two parts to schedule 2. The first measure is to introduce a cut-off point when eligibility ceases. The second measure is to reduce the eligibility age to 50 years for partner service pension for the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate disability pension, or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This measure is a good thing, but it is evidence of Labor not understanding the veteran community when they introduced the legislation earlier in the year and increased the age eligibility. It is proof of policy on the run.

Additional amendments in the schedule make minor changes to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act consequent upon the enactment of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. It is expected that this schedule will commence from 1 July 2009, and the forecast savings in the first Labor budget are expected to be approximately $77.8 million over four years.

Schedule 3 removes a number of anomalies in relation to the new child support formula reforms that commenced on 1 July 2008. Minor amendments to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, referred to as the assessment act, and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, referred to as the registration and collection act, are set out in seven parts covering percentage of care, publication of reasons for decisions of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, departure from assessments, terminating events, reducing rate of child support under minimum annual rate assessments, overseas liabilities and crediting prescribed payments. The amendments will ensure a more balanced and flexible way of working out child support payments and will affect all parents who receive or pay child support.

Reforms to the child support system were announced by the coalition in 2006 and received bipartisan support. The reforms were introduced in July 2008. Amendments in schedules 1 and 3 are welcome and build on initiatives introduced by the coalition when in government. The coalition successfully increased the funding for and rates of immunisation. In 1996, the coalition built on the National Immunisation Strategy, which evolved into the Immunise Australia seven-point plan in 1997. By that time, the coalition had introduced the pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccination programs. In 1995, immunisation rates for children from birth to six years were as low as 52 per cent. Since the introduction of the Immunise Australia program, childhood immunisation rates have increased to an all-time high, with over 90 per cent of children aged 12 to 15 months fully immunised.

In 1996, Australian government expenditure on vaccines was $13 million and by the following year expenditure had increased to $443.2 million—a 34-fold increase. The coalition in government was serious about reducing childhood diseases and ensuring Australia was a healthy nation, and this continues. For an immunisation program to be effective, the coalition knew that parents had to participate. The first initiative directed towards parents was to provide a bonus through a restructured maternity allowance. From 1998, this payment was paid in two instalments, the first at birth and the second at 18 months. The second payment is known as the maternity immunisation allowance. The allowance paid to parents is a strong incentive to ensure a child’s immunisation program completes the five key childhood immunisation milestones—at two, four, six, 12 and 18 months of age.

A second initiative introduced in 1998 was directed towards parents in relation to childcare rebates. From 27 April 1998, families applying for childcare assistance and the childcare cash rebate were required to demonstrate that their child was fully immunised. On 1 July 2000, both childcare assistance and the childcare cash rebate were replaced by a new payment called the childcare benefit. Provisions were made for parents who do not have their children immunised due to medical contraindications or conscientious objection.

Schedule 1 introduces a split payment by paying the maternity immunisation allowance, MIA, for children who meet the 18-months and four-year-old immunisation requirements. Currently, eligibility for the maternity immunisation allowance is limited to children up to the age of two and is paid only once. Schedule 1 introduces split payment and extends eligibility for children up to the age of five. Schedule 1 also introduces eligibility for children born outside Australia and adopted prior to entering Australia. The adoption process does not have to be finalised at the time the child enters Australia, but the child must be entrusted to the care of the person adopting the child by an authorised person and arrive in Australia while under the age of 16.

I return now to schedule 2, an amendment which the coalition opposes. The new amendment seeks to contain certain budget and non-budget measures that affect veterans and their families either receiving or eligible to receive the partner service pension entitlement. These veterans and their families are getting a very poor deal from the Labor government. While this government adjusted its budget upwards, with projected gross savings of $77.8 million by the proposed changes to veterans entitlements in schedule 2, ordinary Australians—partners of veterans—faced with changed family relationships will, if this bill is accepted without amendment, from 1 January 2009, have to adjust their household budget downward as a result of those changes. In the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008, presented by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the government abandoned veterans’ partners and planned to cut off the pension from partners who had separated from, but did not divorce, their veteran partner. Veterans and their families already have had to adjust their household budgets because of the increased cost of living. This bill will add further financial pressure.

Why is the government going against its own policy in relation to veterans entitlements and the partner service pension? It is important to make this point: the partner service pension is not a pension in the sense of a welfare payment; it is an entitlement paid in respect of, and acknowledgement for, the veterans’ special circumstances—the intangible effects of war that may result in premature ageing, loss of earning power through illness or injury and the many other pressures of service in the armed forces. Veterans and their families, particularly spouses and partners, have given much to this nation, in many instances laying their lives on the line. They have sacrificed much. We pay tribute to partners and spouses who love and support our veterans.

The effects of service, especially for those who have served in war zones, vary from person to person, but there are effects just the same. The coalition acknowledges and respects the sacrifices veterans and their families have made in the service of this nation. In the Labor government’s budget 2008-09, they made a commitment to being responsive and meeting the needs of a changing ex-service community with a focus on aged care, World War II veterans and the needs of younger veterans and members. This was touted as a key focus, but the Labor Party do not respect veterans and their families; otherwise, they would not strip away entitlements and force people who are already in stressful circumstances through relationship breakdown onto welfare. This is especially true of partners who separate and where there may be children involved. Under this bill, these separated partners will be forced to find a job or to go onto Centrelink payments. That is welfare. That is another cut that hurts the defence community deeply. The veterans community and the coalition agree on this point. A service pension is not a welfare payment; it is an entitlement. It is acknowledgement of the sacrifices and special circumstances of defence families, of veteran families. We should be grateful for these wonderful men and women who rise to whatever challenges are thrown their way and do a job that we cannot do. The Labor Party are not grateful and lack understanding of our veteran community.

Eligibility applies to those partners who are separated by illness or who separate but do not enter a marriage-like relationship with another person for up to 12 months after separation. Once the 12 months are up, the payment is cut off. The coalition, back in May 2008, criticised the government for raising the age eligibility, and rightly so. The criticism is as valid today as it was then for the way in which the age eligibility threshold was changed from 50 years of age to 58.5 years of age for women and to 60 years of age for men and now back again. This was no incremental jump but a gigantic leap that shifted the financial goalposts for many families that had planned for that pension. Why did the government do this? To save money, they say.

But I put to the government that the real reason is to shift veterans entitlements from the department’s budget onto welfare payments. It was a slash-and-burn decision with no consideration for the emotional, financial or social impact on vulnerable partners. This is typical of a Labor government that does not have a good record of economic management and is desperate to get some traction on economic management but has no idea that this is not the way to go. It has made a mistake by lifting that age threshold and is now caught in the backlash from the veterans community. Just as Labor is suffering a backlash by refusing to support the $30 per week rise for single age pensions, single service pensions and widow B pensions, this bill denies a benefit to partners of veterans after they have separated. This is short-sighted at a time when cost-of-living pressures, fuel, groceries and rent—and the list goes on—are placing significant burdens on veterans, their partners and their families. When they are separating, both partners in or both members of a relationship face challenges. This is a time when such government action can further exacerbate the challenges faced by all concerned. The coalition opposes the changes to the partner service pension where people are separated but not divorced. The coalition strongly believes that veterans and their partners, the men and women who support our veterans, are entitled to special entitlements and support as a way of recognising the contribution and sacrifice that our servicemen and servicewomen have made in service to our country.

During the election campaign, the current Prime Minister promised the veterans community that veterans would not be worse off under a Rudd Labor government. This bill makes a mockery of that election promise. In the very first budget of the Labor government these two measures ripped $113 million out of veterans entitlements. How is that ensuring veterans are not worse off? Their partners, once the couple are separated, only have 12 months of support before they have to apply to Centrelink. There is immediate termination of the partner service pension payment if the veteran enters a new marriage-like relationship.

Since 1962 Australia has been engaged in war zones in Vietnam, from 1962 to 1975; Somalia, from 1992 to 1994; East Timor, from 1999 to 2003; Afghanistan, from 2001 to the present; and Iraq, from 2003 to the present. This time frame of 1962 to 2008 is 46 years. Consider servicemen or servicewomen who married sometime in those 46 years or who are in a marriage-like relationship and who are now reaching the age of 50. They have to endure another 8.5 years or 10 years before they are eligible for income support. What happens if they separate when their partner reaches the eligibility age? If the veteran begins a new marriage-like relationship, the former partner has to immediately find a job or apply for Newstart, which is a welfare payment to support people while they look for a job. With the shift upwards of eligibility thresholds for the age pension, the gap between Newstart and the age pension is problematic and adds further financial pressure to the distressing situation of a broken relationship. How can the Labor Party do this to people? I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment in relation to the changes to the partner service pension.

The final part of the bill is schedule 3, and I have already covered a number of amendments to the new child support system. It is worth reflecting on what these changes will mean to the parents, either payers or payees, in this system. The new Australian Child Support Scheme commenced on 1 July 2008 with bipartisan support. Schedule 3, which deals with child support, makes minor technical amendments but will ensure the system is more transparent and equitable. The amendment as to percentage of care will enable the registrar to determine changes in the percentage of care undertaken by a parent to be reflected in the child support assessment. Another amendment allows internal review decisions of the registrar that are reviewable by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to be communicated to a person authorised by the secretary to undertake publication in a de-identified form to ensure privacy of a party or a witness to the proceedings. A third minor amendment relates to mechanisms to amend child support assessments, where appropriate, to take into account high childcare costs for non-carer parents. This is necessary because currently a non-parent carer, unlike a parent, is required to provide income details for child support purposes.

A fourth amendment clarifies circumstances in which the administrative assessment of child support will terminate. Reducing the rate of child support under minimum annual rate assessments will now be able to be done by the registrar where a minimum annual rate has been assessed and the parent’s income is below the formula for a 12-month period. In the case of parents with additional overseas liabilities in reciprocating jurisdictions, those liabilities are reflected in the new child support formula. It allows the registrar to issue a departure prohibition order in respect of outstanding child support obligations where appropriate. The final amendment to the child support system clarifies the rule whereby prescribed payments, such as school fees or necessary medical expenses for the child, can be credited in substitution for payment to the registrar.

These amendments are welcome improvements to the child support system. Reforms to the child support system were initiated by the coalition in response to concerns raised by paying parents and payee parents in the system. The reforms were adopted by the Rudd Labor government. The amendments proposed in schedules 1 and 3 of this bill are acceptable to the coalition. Schedule 2 is being opposed by the opposition. I now move the foreshadowed amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading the House:

(1)

notes the Coalition’s support for the provisions concerning the maternity immunisation allowance and child support;

(2)

notes the Coalition’s agreement to setting at 50 years of age eligibility for partner service pension for the partners of veterans who are in receipt of the equivalent of or less than the special rate but above the general rate disability, or who have at least 80 impairment points;

(3)

condemns the Government’s stubborn determination to insist that from 1 January 2009 partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached the age for the age pension, will have their partner service pension eligibility cease 12 months after being separated or immediately if the veteran enters a marriage-like relationship”.

See this speech in context