Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

I support a number of the initiatives that are part of this motion. I support them because, frankly, they are largely Labor policy. They are not only Labor policy but also they were largely labour initiatives. Before I get interjections from the other side—which I know are coming—I will go to a couple of particular points. The National ADF Family Health Program was introduced by the Labor Party and rolled out by the Labor Party. For example, in November 2013, the Commander Joint Health, Rear Admiral Robyn Walker, confirmed that Labor's plan to deliver improved health care to ADF families was on track to be delivered by 1 January, and no changes have been made to this program since the election—no changes. The fact of the matter is that what we are seeing rolled out is basically what we were doing.

Project Suakin is, again, a program that was developed under Labor; an initiative which was launched by the then parliamentary secretary to defence in August 2011. Once again, it is basically our program. So, I support the initiative. I note that it took some three years to develop. Frankly, the members opposite might remember that they were not in government over the previous three years. So, again, we are seeing an initiative that was rolled out by Labor being rebadged by the coalition.

On Defence Housing, I raise a concern. The government have made it clear that they are seeking to privatise. The government have made it clear that they are looking at scoping the question of getting rid of Defence Housing. I ask them to be very, very careful if they should move down that track. At the moment, as far as I understand it, the details around the scoping study are still not known. But the bottom-line is this: look at the overseas experience and I refer particularly to the UK. In 1996, they privatised their defence housing and a number of concerns were raised about how that operated. I am not saying that is going to happen here, but I am saying that the government needs to be very aware when they move into this area and expose the private sector to this field. As the member for Herbert knows, Defence Housing has a very high approval rating within the defence forces. It provides a very high quality service. But when it happened in the UK, there were significant concerns about poor-standard accommodation and maintenance, and all of those issues had a direct impact on defence personnel. So they need to be very careful.

The last issue I will come to is the question of indexation of DFRB and DFRDB. I absolutely concede that the government—on that one—finally delivered on an election commitment. But in the process of doing so, they neglected to mention to the Australian people that they were going to go the other way with respect to the indexation methodologies for a range of other pensions and benefits. The circumstances are that DFRDB and DFRB recipients will go backwards when changes in relation to the indexation for disability pensions and for income support payments come into effect in a couple of years time. The increase that they may get as a result of improved indexation methodologies for their superannuation payments will be completely negated. In many cases, the penalty will be worse with respect to the changes that will occur around the indexation of other benefits. For example, someone who is a TPI—a totally and permanently incapacitated member of the defence force—who also happens to be a DFRDB recipient will lose more as a result of the changes that the government has foreshadowed with respect to their disability pension than they would receive in respect of any increase to their DFRB payment, unless they are an Air Vice Marshall in terms of their retirement payment. On the average payment in relation to the DFRDB, which as I recall is around $22,000 to $23,000, the circumstances are that it is well below the TPI payment and the impact on them will be worse. So what we are seeing here is the government giving to a few people—under $60,000 with respect to these superannuation payments—while taking from many more, many of whom are Defence Force personnel or ex-personnel and many of whom have served this country well. They do not deserve to be treated in this way.

See this speech in context