Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Hansard source

No, they are ineligible for the card because their income is too high. This data-matching process is part and parcel of the compliance regime that is a regular occurrence within the department. This legislation is about enabling tax file numbers to be collected. That is what this is all about.

In relation to the second issue concerning the partner service pension that has been raised by Senator Bernardi, I would like to put very clearly on the record what this measure is all about. The qualifying age for the age partner service pension will be raised from the current age of 50 to a qualifying age that is the equivalent of the veteran pension age for new claims made from 1 July 2008, subject to age equalisation. First of all, the change will not apply to a claimant who has a dependent child or who is the partner of a special rate pensioner—that is a TPI pensioner—nor will it apply to existing partner service pension recipients while they retain their current eligibility. Partners of veterans will still be able to claim the partner service pension five years earlier than the general population, who access income support on the basis of age at Centrelink. And no-one currently receiving a partner service pension—that is, at 30 June 2008—will lose their payment as a result of this change. However, if their pension is cancelled for any other reason, a subsequent new claim will be subject to the new age requirement. The kind of reason that it might be is if they enter into a new relationship, and are married to someone else and are therefore no longer eligible. The change reflects community expectations that people should participate in the paid workforce where possible rather than calling on taxpayer funded income support.

I note that the discussion that occurred in the Senate inquiry on Friday went to the issue of people remaining in the workforce beyond the age of 50. Encouraging the partners of veterans to retire at age 50 conflicts with everything we know about community standards and may contribute to long-term health, financial and social isolation problems for those people, who would end up spending several decades in retirement. As Senator Siewert so rightly pointed out, people over 50 have a significant earning capacity. And for women, most often the partners of veterans, the idea of building up their superannuation savings by continuing in the workforce until their retirement age would contribute in the order of $45,000 to their employment savings. That is a significant amount of savings for the future, which they would need to have. The change removes an anomaly where partners can access their service pension up to 10 years before the veterans themselves can. These types of pensions have been phased out progressively since 1995 by both Labor and Liberal governments.

Some parts of the veteran community have interpreted this change as demonstrating a lack of respect for veterans and their partners, but it is merely rectifying an anomaly which encourages premature departure from the workforce by those who are very capable of increasing their private savings, superannuation, health outcomes and contribution to the nation. Being very clear about what the impact of the partner service pension amendment does is very important. It is certainly not a hidden agenda within the FaHCSIA bill, and I need to advise both Senator Bernardi and Senator Boswell that the shadow minister has been briefed twice on all of the impacts of this legislation and understands them quite clearly.