Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. I will simply say to the Independents on the cross bench, who have a very important decision to make on the question of ageism, that this bill is about precisely that. It is about abolishing a requirement in the law that disadvantages an employee on the basis of age. If it were a law that was disadvantaging an employee on the basis of race, I bet nobody would hesitate to vote for it. If it were a disadvantage on the basis of sex, I bet nobody would hesitate in voting for it. But because it is a disadvantage on the basis of age, the government is working overtime to persuade the members on the crossbench that they should be supported and that the crossbenchers should not support the bill to abolish this disadvantage to employees on the basis of age.

I have said over and over again in this place that I want ageism to be considered just as offensive as sexism and racism. It is not reasonable, in a country that says it is inclusive and that it wants every individual to matter and be important, to have on our statute books a provision that disadvantages an employee just on the basis of that person's age. If the crossbenchers were to agree to the government's persuasions and knock it out, it would be a vote against people on the basis of age. I really do not think that as a group of people they would find that accepted.

The government will try and the Attorney-General has tried to say it is a constitutional issue. Let me give you the background to the way the bill came forward. I asked the clerks to draft the bill. The clerks did draft the bill. It went into the process, under the new paradigm, of giving each member their right and entitlement to bring forward matters of importance to the people. Subsequent to the bill going into the process, I got a note from the Clerk's office that said, 'Some people have been asking: is this an appropriation bill?' On further investigation I was told it was the government that was asking—wanting to knock it out. So there was no problem when the bill was drafted; there was no problem when it went in. It all happened post facto. Suddenly, the government wanted to knock it out. I then went and sought other advice. When I was heavied by many people to try to amend my bill to say that it would only come into effect when the government introduced an appropriation bill, I refused to do so because that would have made the bill null and void—it would not come into effect. I was urged to do that as recently as today.

I say to you, Mr Attorney-General, that if you feel so passionately about this issue then here is a proposition: let the bill have a second reading and, when we go to the consideration in detail, you move amendments and give an undertaking that you will bring in an appropriation bill to effect what I want to do and remove age discrimination. That would be a fair and reasonable way for you to proceed. But to try and knock the bill out on the basis of it being against the Constitution when it is giving every single Australian the right to be treated equally and not discriminated against on the basis of age, I find appalling. I find it appalling that someone for whom I have a good respect would want to argue in that way.

So I say to you: I have given you a proposition; I have given you a way forward. You could give it a second reading. You could then move your amendments and give an undertaking that you would bring in an appropriation bill to give effect to my private member's bill and then agree to my subsequent amendment to the tax bill to grant the tax deductibility. That would give us a way forward and it would remove the age discrimination that is currently in our law and totally unacceptable.

I go back to first principles. We have about 100 people in the Public Service who are over the age of 70, and my understanding is that the government, as the model employer, does not pay these people the superannuation guarantee. That is unforgivable. I say to you: if you accept what I put forward—that you give the bill a second reading, that you then move the amendment that it will only come into force when you bring in the appropriation bill and that you give an undertaking that it will do so, and that you will accept the amendment to allow tax deductibility for people over the age of 75 where the employer is then enabled to pay that superannuation guarantee charge—we would have a fair solution and a resolution which ought to satisfy your concerns. It certainly would satisfy mine, because it would be bringing justice to the people who are currently disadvantaged. That includes your own employees. Let me it say again: there are Public Service employees under this government right now and that is why it is important that we deal with this as a question of suspending the standing orders.

See this speech in context