Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

we should be suspending standing orders, it is because the decision to go after veterans' orphans is shifty, because the figures do not add up and because it reflects poor priorities, and it also is not the desired position of all of the people who, day by day, stand by veterans' orphans. This is not just a question of Labor being critical of the government. I look at what the Prime Minister said to Legacy on 18 October. That champion, then, of orphans said 'the orphans of those who have paid the highest possible price in the service of our country' should be cared for. And then he said, later on: 'But we were prepared to put tough policies up front.' Where on earth did the government, when they were in opposition, ever say that they were necking the benefits to go to veterans' orphans? That document does not exist. They know they never spelled it out.

But I do quote here Don Rowe, the president of the New South Wales RSL. He captures it articulately in two or three words: 'absolutely disgusted', 'mean-spirited', 'penny-pinching exercise'. Then I look at the Defence Force Welfare Association spokesperson, who said he was—and I quote him—'bloody stunned'. He said:

There's a lot of things that can be ripped away—

and he does not even like the mining tax. 'But,' he said:

… to target kids, and only about 1,200 of them, over something that costs so little, seems a bit petty to us …

That is why we should suspend standing orders. Legacy Australia, who could not shake Tony Abbott before the election, said:

Legacy would be disappointed if any of the welfare payments are cut to the families of deceased or incapacitated veterans.

Dave Spillman, president of the Kwinana branch of the RSL, said: 'We're shocked that our Prime Minister would cut something that helps the kids of RSL members.' That is why standing orders should be suspended.

See this speech in context