Mr MURPHY (11:13 AM) —On the anniversary of the start, some 60 years ago, of World War II, and in the International Year of the Older Person, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . Being, largely, a positive person, I would like to start on a positive note. There are a lot of good things in this bill, with one notable exception, which I will deal with secondly. To the extent that this bill looks after the independence and quality of life of the veterans community, particularly in the areas of the housing program and the Veterans' Children Education Scheme, I am happy to support the government's initiatives.

I was very interested to hear the member for Macquarie talk a moment ago about the initiatives taken by this government for the veteran community. We are very proud in Australia that, whichever side of politics you are on, there has been absolute support for veterans and their dependants for the service they have given to this country. I spent 20 of the happiest years of my life in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and I got to know ex-servicemen in a whole range of positions very well. I even had the status of working on the determining authorities to grant entitlements and pensions to widows and their dependants. I cannot speak highly enough of the debt that the ex-service community have paid for us, and they deserve everything they can get.

I want to say that in respect of the housing program and the VCES, the government has got it right. The VCES, as we know, provides financial assistance to support children of permanently incapacitated, deceased or blinded veterans, Defence Force members or members of peacekeeping forces. The VCES supports children of living veterans, and this bill proposes to extend those entitlements to children of veterans who suffer from extreme disability adjustment. We know how the legislation has changed over the years in terms of the TPI and the automatic entitlement that veterans' children were entitled to under that scheme, but there are many veterans who are significantly disabled and get the EDA. It is good that the government has decided to give these benefits because, notwithstanding that it might not be exclusively related to war service or to the extent of the disability that would attract the TPI and the test that is applied to that pension, this benefit for kids is a very, very good thing.

The housing program with HomeFront, which was introduced in January 1999 and aims to reduce household accidents, and particularly falls, in the homes of veterans, war widows and widowers, is a very good initiative. I will give the government a tick for that because any attempt to keep veterans at home is good for the quality of life of the veterans and their families. And, of course, there is invariably a dividend for the taxpayer. So, by keeping veterans at home, that is a wonderful initiative.

I do question the amount of the $150 that the government is offering for minor household alterations because we all know that $150 is not a lot of money in today's terms. I think the government could be a little more generous in helping the veteran community and their dependants by increasing that particular benefit. But, when this bill is passed, eligibility will have been extended to white card holders, increasing the number of eligible veterans by 63,000 and enabling 340,000 veterans to access the service Australia wide.

I am advised that the assessor may also identify what home and community support services may be necessary to allow veterans to stay in their own homes, and also provide the Repatriation Commission with some flexibility in response to the needs of veterans, thereby ensuring that this will occur in a timely and detailed manner. That is a very, very good thing. But I remind this House that the government could do a little bit more in respect of that $150 to help with the living expenses and the cost of hiring tradesmen and all that, which we all know is expensive.

Concerning the Home Support Loan Scheme, the 1999-2000 budget provides a maximum of $10,000 with an interest rate of 6.85 per cent for eligible veterans, war widows and widowers who wish to complete home maintenance and modifications, including improving safety and security or purchase of household appliances such as hot water systems and associated plumbing. That is great if you can afford to repay the loan. If veterans are eligible, those veterans are eligible also to insure their homes under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme.

I would make the point though that there would be many who are in receipt of invalid pensions who would be unable to meet loan repayments for such a debt over a period of five years. Repayments would possibly be around $250 a month, and this would be an impossible amount for most pensioners to repay. Also, if the veteran has other outstanding advances then he or she would not be able to borrow the maximum amount to meet those commitments.

In terms of the VCES and in terms of the housing program, HomeFront, that is a good thing that the government is achieving. I was reading the minister's second reading speech last night in preparation for saying a few words here this morning. Minister Scott said:

The initiatives foreshadowed for the Veterans' Affairs portfolio in this year's budget build on our commitment to provide generous compensation and assistance recognising the special standing of the veteran community.

The minister went on to beat his breast about government priorities to help veterans and to highlight the government's focus on the National Healthy Ageing Strategy in the International Year of the Older Person. That was a good thing.

Unfortunately, the minister did not talk about the savings that the department hopes to achieve in the area of invalidity service pensions. I want to give Minister Scott a good kick in the tail for not saying anything about this in his second reading speech and for failing to include his hidden agenda—or the Howard government's hidden agenda—to achieve savings to the tune of some $10 million over the next four years. These provisions will also affect existing recipients.

It is estimated that 13 per cent of existing pensioners will be forced to undergo a medical re-examination. You have to ask, `Why does the department, why does the government, why does the minister want to do this to those who have fought for their country? Why do they want to put them through it?' Worse, there are no grandfather clauses to protect those veterans and families when they fail the new test. When they are in that situation, what happens, Madam Deputy Speaker? I will tell you. The veterans will be forced to approach Centrelink and the test for Centrelink will be much harder. If the veterans succeed in gaining an entitlement from that agency, it will be significantly less in dollar terms. Why? Because when Centrelink do their assessments for their pensions, they take the full quantum of disability pension from the Department of Veterans' Affairs into account, unlike the Department of Veterans' Affairs. When it is assessing its entitlement to the invalid service pension, the disability pension is discounted.

So you can see where the savings are going to come from. You can also see that, with the loss of the pension from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the associated fringe benefits, particularly the full entitlement to medical coverage, that is not a very good thing. If any group of people should be entitled to full medical coverage, it is those who have served their country—those who have had the qualifying war service. They have done something for this country. The least we can do to repay them is to provide full medical coverage.

Almost daily, we read in the papers and hear on the news about the problems with our public health system. People are complaining that they are not fully covered and have additional expenses. I would think that the veteran population should be looked after so that they are fully covered for their medical entitlements and are not put in the situation where they are taken off the benefit from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and referred to Centrelink—where they may or may not get a further benefit and, if they do, it will be a reduced benefit. But, as I said earlier, that is obviously what the government wants because there is an opportunity to achieve savings.

I do not want to harp on that because, as I said at the start of my speech, this country has a proud tradition of supporting the veteran community. Truly, we have the most generous repatriation system in terms of compensation of any system in the world. That should be maintained. It is not very often that we, on either side of the House, get terribly political about veterans. But the veteran community is ageing. The Second World War diggers are pushing 80 years of age. I think it would not hurt if, ultimately, we provided them with full coverage for their medical entitlements, because that would help them and their families, and obviously improve their quality of life.

I am aware that, in relation to this bill, a Senate committee inquiry has been established to take submissions from veteran organisations and individuals in the community. I will certainly be encouraging people like Ian Finlay and Bruce Wilson from the Burwood RSL sub-branch, which is just down the road from my electorate office, and people like Russ Kenny and Bob Williams from the Enfield sub-branch, and Bluey Rowe, from the Concord sub-branch, to make submissions to the inquiry. Bluey worked for many years in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and had distinguished war service himself. I know he would be very concerned that some veterans might lose benefits and not be protected when this legislation is passed. I will also encourage Phil Drougas, from the Drummoyne sub-branch of the RSL in my electorate. I am a member of that club.

Clearly, the ex-servicemen in all the sub-branches in my electorate of Lowe will be encouraged by their local federal member to make submissions to the Senate committee in relation to this bill. I hope that, when the bill is considered by the Senate, the Senate will look at the full implications of the bill and do something to restore the proposed changes to the invalidity service pension.

In conclusion, I support the government in those two areas of housing and the VCES program. I cannot support the government or Minister Scott in terms of the invalidity service pension. I am proud to say that those on both sides of the House support the need to continue to do everything we can for the veteran community, and no doubt that will continue to be the case when my party returns to the government benches. I am certainly keen to see the ex-service community looked after in every possible way, and to see that there is no penny pinching associated with this bill which discriminates in one area against the very people in the community whom we should put on a pedestal.