Address to the War Widows’ Guild, Biennial National Conference

Speech

Transcript - Canberra, ACT - 23 October 2002

Check Against Delivery

Ladies and Gentlemen thank you for your invitation to speak to your annual conference today.

Since being given the veterans' affairs portfolio to shadow I have been very busy getting around as many ex service organisations as possible – getting to know the people in charge and getting to know the issues which concern them the most.

I have also enjoyed being part of the commemorative party which travelled to Singapore to mark the 60^th anniversary of its surrender to the Japanese, and more recently to the village of Isurava, high in the Owen Stanley ranges of Papua new Guinea to remember the battle of Kokoda.

These trips I value highly as more than anything else they drive home that great sense of commitment, loss and hardship which otherwise is so difficult to comprehend fully.

In addition to having attended all the annual congresses this year as well as regular meetings with senior representatives in all states, I have also visited a number of repatriation hospitals and private hospitals specialising in veterans' care, as well as obtaining extensive briefing from the VVCS in a number of states in an attempt to get a better feel for the depth of issues surrounding the needs of younger veterans' families.

This Friday in fact I will be at Heidelberg at the Centre for War Related PTSD.

My consultations with the ex service community have been very valuable and it has been gratifying to be welcomed the way I have been, and to have received positive comment on the wide range of views I have been expressing as I come to grips with the complexity of policy issues as part of the Labor Party review in the lead up to the next election.

Among those views I would mention in particular a detailed speech I made on war widows policy during the debate on the legislation which enacted the indexation of the Income Support Supplement.

I don't intend to repeat that today, but I will touch on the salient elements shortly.

Overall I must say that veterans and their families in general are well catered for, though for some it will never be enough.

I am concerned however, about the inequitable distribution of that money as there is still a number of areas, particularly for a small number of widows, where there is outstanding need.

The most powerful impression I have though is that the veteran community seems to be divided into the haves and the have nots, the dividing line being those who are fully covered by the Veterans' Entitlement Act and those who are not and want to be, all based on the rationale of exposure to danger, or of whether, in the event of death, the link with service can be made.

This is particularly true of widows where so many believe that the system is fickle and unfair. For widows it is more a question of chance as to whether a veteran's death can be linked to war service - in clear knowledge that in many cases the probability of war causation is very low.

With respect to larger policy issues there are great hopes placed on the outcomes of the Clarke Review. I look forward to their analysis and policy options on the whole range of matters put to them by the veteran and ex service community.

As an indication of attitude I think it is only fair of me to say that proposals for reform or change are going to be difficult.

Addressing the needs or wishes of the have nots is expensive, and if history is any guide, extension of benefits seems to result in an arbitrary line being drawn whereby inevitably others miss out. Getting the priorities right is very hard.

Added to this of course is the fact that the Government's budget is under huge pressure, and it will get worse. Defence funding is coming under extraordinary pressure, and the drought, which is shaping to be the worst in 60 years, is going to cost significantly for support measures alone.

In fact, as a result of the Bali tragedy it is fair to say that we have now entered a very difficult and uncertain era – the implications for which are now being understood for the first time – but I suggest only in an elementary way.

For the first time since 1942, which many of you will remember only too well, Australia is now as vulnerable as anyone else. Our isolation is no protection, and we cannot withdraw from our international obligations.

Our risks are not of invasion, or of being drawn into wars overseas of someone else's making.

What Bali has shown is that the globalisation of guerrilla war which targets citizens in insidious way, is a real threat – every day and everywhere.

Our whole approach to foreign policy and defence will shift dramatically – as will our budgetary priorities.

Clearly individual interests are going to take second place to collective and national interest.

This is compounded by the fact that the budget is already in deficit – and for veterans it might be noted that of the current budget of $9.5 billion,, $2.5 of that has been added in the last 5 years – and for a declining population.

That too is the backdrop against which I must also prepare my draft policy paper, and I suggest to the veteran community that the Government is already moving to tighten the purse strings.

The inclusion of a "no money" clause in the terms of reference of the Clarke Review has not gone unnoticed, leading many veterans to describe it as a pointless exercise.

The withdrawal of so many specialists and a rapidly increasing number of GP's from the Gold Card scheme as the result of the Government's unwillingness to spend any more money at this time is also an ominous sign.

Now I am sorry to appear a doomsayer, but at this time we need to be realistic – and I make no promises except that I will defend the entitlements of veterans where they are based on the principles of fairness and need – and on budgetary affordability.

This brings me to policy on widows which I foreshadowed.

I find it very difficult to find a consistent rationale for war widows' benefits over the years, and hence my conclusion that it has all been pretty ad hoc, on a budget by budget basis. In fact the view seems to be that the last budget was "the widows' turn" – which is not much of an approach to policy formulation.

This approach though is not new, and I'll be honest by saying that the Labor Party also suffered the same shortcoming, and that changes made in 1987 when the ISS was created are a case in point.

In fact during my speech on the recent bill indexing the ISS I said as much and was critical that the indexation did not go far enough in bringing in a broader and sounder approach to the range of supporting services available to widows, especially younger ones with some capacity to renter the workforce.

Quite frankly it is absurd that these widows are barred from accessing Newstart and the training programs that go with it. As we know there is a small number of widows without children under 57 who cannot get ISS, and yet cannot get Newstart either. They are condemned to receive only the war widows pension and the Gold Card, for what it is worth – and it does not buy groceries or pay the rent.

If in fact they do not own their own home which is often the case, they are in fact better off not taking the war widows pension and the Gold card if they are healthy, staying with their partner service pension at the single rate with rent assistance.

This is an area of immediate need which, I believe, would cost little to redress but which is repeatedly ignored – and I note it does not appear on any "wish lists".

From this it also follows in my mind that the inclusion of rent assistance within the ISS is also a substantial cause of hardship, and is another element of the 1987 changes which ought to have high priority for redress.

Finally can I also refer to the other outstanding inconsistency with respect to widows benefits and that is the removal of the prior requirement that the pension be forgone on remarriage.

This started as you know in 1984 when it was half undone by the ALP, and had another instalment last budget . It is however incomplete as there is still a significant number of war widows who were never entitled as they remarried before they applied. That is, you had to have lost the pension to have it restored.

This of course is ludicrous, but it is also confusing in policy terms because it seems that the pension is now seen as a right – for most – but is not always based on need. So you can see the dilemma.

Whatever peoples' views, it is certainly discriminatory and those who were disqualified because they remarried prior to 1984 have good grounds to be aggrieved.

There are several other eccentricities relating to marriage too for example, the effects of separation, and the plight of some wives and partners suffering violence, and who lose their entitlements if they divorce.

To remedy all these issues would be an extremely difficult matter, and for which change would be difficult without huge cost. Yet I see little enthusiasm to tackle these matters, particularly where it might mean robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I could keep going in more detail on these and other widows' issues but I will resist the temptation – except to say that I do need to assure you that I do understand – albeit in a very difficult budgetary context, which prevents any rash promises being made.

I will say though that it is only to be hoped that as the Government progresses slowly with a new military compensation scheme that we get a model, which is better than the one you all are part of. We must for example draw a clear line between compensation for the grief and loss of a loved one, and the need for financial support which is not part of the welfare system.

Yet at the same time it must be of comparable lifetime value, and be flexible enough to reflect individual needs. It is certainly possible and I can assure you that I will be going through it with a fine tooth comb.

Clearly though it will be next year before we get a look at the model now being worked on.

So there you have my views, though brief on some of the issues as I see them for the widows' community.

I know there are more, and they have been conveyed to me by some of you and by Legacy people who are equally concerned with the care of children.

If you have any feedback on what I have said today, or previously I would be very happy to get it. I really value the opportunity to speak to you today and I hope that in getting beyond the platitudes I have been able to convey to you my bona fides and to assure that my intentions of developing good policy are serious and fully focussed.

Thank you again for the opportunity of speaking to you and I look forward to building a relationship in the interests of your members and all widows.

Thank you.