Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following item of private Members' business being called on, and considered immediately:

Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011—Order of the day No. 18.

Very briefly, the Attorney-General will be commenting on behalf of the government on the constitutionality of this issue.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a lot of bush lawyers on standing orders here.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was making no contribution.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Minister for Defence. The question before the House is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to. It is open to debate. If somebody seeks the call, they will be given the call or I will just put it to the vote.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I submit that the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing and sessional orders should be agreed to, because there is an important constitutional issue to be considered in respect of this private member's bill. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, specifically that there is no proper basis for the bill to proceed once it is called on. There is no proper basis for it to proceed in the House of Representatives, having regard, first, to the requirements of section 56 of the Constitution and, second, to the fact that the bill could not properly have been introduced into the House in view of standing order 179(a).

I addressed the first matter generally in a letter of advice to you, dated 16 February 2011, which you tabled on 21 February of this year. I will briefly revisit that constitutional issue before discussing the requirements of standing order 179. Essentially, under Australia's constitutional arrangements, the government of the day is responsible for the management of public revenue and the budget. Specifically, section 56 of the Constitution states that laws appropriating money shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has been recommended by message of the Governor-General. The Governor-General's message can be given only on the advice of the government of the day, and this procedure is reflected in standing order 180. House of Representatives Practice, fifth edition, 2005, at page 409, states that an appropriation bill includes a bill that would have the effect of increasing or extending the amount that may be paid out of the existing Consolidated Revenue Fund. In my letter of advice to you, I outlined the historical background of these provisions and referred to the previous advices provided by the then Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick. In particular, Sir Garfield was of the opinion that a bill appropriating money includes a bill that has the effect of liberalising the conditions under which the benefits are payable. I will shortly discuss why the subject bill would have that effect.

Before I do so, however, I refer to the second issue to which I have referred—that is, the requirement of 179(a), which provides:

Only a Minister may initiate a proposal to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge.

The Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011, if brought on, would have the effect of both changing the scope of the charge and also introducing an appropriation. In particular, very briefly, I know that this bill proposes to abolish the age limit relating to the payment of superannuation contributions for employees. If the bill was passed, employers who did not make the superannuation contributions for employees aged over 70 would be liable—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! If members want to have a discussion across the table whilst the Attorney-General is on his feet they can do so elsewhere.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you for your courtesy, Mr Speaker, and trust it will be extended by my very noisy colleagues on both sides of the House. If the bill were passed, employers who did not make superannuation contributions for employees over 70 would be liable to pay a superannuation guarantee charge in respect to any shortfall under the act. The consequence of the bill would be that employers would be required to pay charges in cases where they are not currently required to do so. Standing order 179 would have been applied to introduce such a measure and this did not occur.

The issue of appropriation also arises because, where the additional charge applies, the Commonwealth would be required to make a payment for the benefit of relevant employees and the Consolidated Revenue Fund would be accessed for that purpose. The proposed law would therefore also involve an appropriation within the meaning of section 56 of the Constitution and standing order 180. On that basis, to be validly passed, the bill requires a message from the Governor-General, which may be obtained only on the advice of the government, and the government does not propose to obtain a message in this case. I therefore support the motion that the bill be brought on and, once brought on, Mr Speaker, I would respectfully request of you that you rule that the bill should not proceed.

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

In rising to speak to the motion as to whether the bill should be brought on, I think that the points made by the Attorney-General need to be answered. Standing order 179 deals with a bill which deals with a tax matter. Clearly this bill does not deal with a tax matter and it is for that precise reason I did not include in the bill a provision that would enable any superannuation payments made to a person over the age of 75 to become a tax deduction. Instead, I am proposing to move that as an amendment to an existing government tax bill, as I am entitled to do, which would grant a tax deduction for that payment.

As the law currently stands, when an employee turns 70, the employer may elect to pay or not pay the superannuation guarantee charge. I believe that to be ageist and sexist as well because it does apply very often to women in that context. But the ageism is very patent. The fact of the matter is that every employee in paid employment should be treated exactly the same and not be disadvantaged because of their age. As the law currently stands, when one turns 70, as I said, the employer does not need to pay the superannuation guarantee charge. If the employer elects to do so then it is a tax deduction up the age of 75. Thereafter, it is illegal to pay the superannuation guarantee charge and therefore there is no provision for it to be a tax deduction.

My proposal is that the age limit of 75 be abolished on the basis that it is discrimination against people on the basis of age. This government are introducing a commissioner for ageist issues, so they are being hypocritical in the extreme in trying to vote down this bill. As I said, the question of tax deductibility for the very small number of people who presently are in that category of working over the age of 75 will be dealt with by amending one of the existing government tax bills.

But now I go to the question of why the existing bill is not a tax bill. I will go to some advice which I have received from the Parliamentary Library. I will direct your attention to the questions that were dealt with in estimates. Nobody in the library is prepared to pay a registration fee for their practising certificate. Although they are qualified lawyers, they do not hold practising certificates and therefore they give advice on legal matters without determining it to be legal advice. I will read out the advice I was given. They were asked whether in their view this was an appropriation bill. The advice was given by Morag Donaldson from the library. She said: 'It does not appropriate revenue or money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government. It simply abolishes the age limit of 70 years from the calculation of the shortfall component which is used in assessing superannuation guarantee charge payable when an employer fails to make superannuation payments by repealing paragraph 27(1)(a) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.'

This advice, like many legal authorities, says that the bill is not a tax bill. It does not change the scope or any charge. While the bill may have consequences for the revenue, it is only if the government is to pay moneys to meet the shortfall in superannuation payments. On the face of it, the bill does not impose, increase or decrease a tax or duty. It specifically says that, because the bill is not an appropriation, section 56 of the Australian Constitution does not apply. Just to remind people, section 56 says that a vote, resolution or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or money shall not be passed unless the proposed purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by a message from the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated. That has not occurred.

To state again what this bill is about: it is a question of age discrimination. The law currently says that for someone between the age of 70 and 75 who is in the paid workforce their employer is not obliged to pay—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Perhaps we could have a little attention.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Those conferencing in the aisles will resume their seats.

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

That does include the Leader of the House, who is lobbying instead of being a member.

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mackellar has the call.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to 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.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will make her remarks through the chair.

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

I would be very interested to hear whether or not the Leader of the House or the Attorney-General will agree to the proposition that I have put forward. And if you do not agree to the proposition that we are putting forward then give us the reasons.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Robert spoke very broadly on this issue.

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

Robert spoke very broadly on this issue. I am only answering the points he raised.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer to members by their parliamentary titles.

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

I will indeed. I apologise—the Attorney-General.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wouldn't know what he said.

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

Well you would not—you were having caucus up the back. You would not know what was said.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for Mackellar will ignore interjections. The member for Mackellar has the call.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. He is rather easy to ignore.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will refer to the motion.

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

If I could just make that point again. There are currently employees of this government in the Public Service who are not being fairly remunerated because they are being discriminated against on the basis of age and are not being paid the superannuation guarantee charge. As the model employer, the government has an obligation to act like a model employer. Allowing this bill to go into effect, either by passing the bill and letting it become law now or by accepting the proposition that I have put to you, would mean that that discrimination will come to an end. If you insist on having this bill voted down—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer her remarks through the chair.

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

Through you, Mr Speaker, if the government simply wants to stonewall and not find a solution to this problem and its own proposition is that only changes should be made affecting people between the age of 70 and 75, it will do nothing about removing the absolute age discrimination of 75. If we are to be truly inclusive in this country, if the government establishing a commissioner against ageism is to have any meaning, then this bill needs to go forward. I say to the crossbenchers, to the people who are independent: you are at a critical time. You have the opportunity to say that you want ageism to be as unacceptable as sexism and racism. Then you have the opportunity to give this bill a second reading.

In speaking on the suspension motion, we are at a crossroads as to whether or not the government is fair dinkum about wanting to end ageism. We on this side of the House certainly are. It is a strong and principled bill and I would seek the government to either allow it to pass or seek the solution to their difficulty as they see it that I have put forward.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In beginning to discuss the question before the House, which is a suspension motion, I do want to thank the members of the House who have participated in some lively discussions in the last 15 minutes, including the Manager of Opposition Business, the Leader of the House, the Speaker himself and the various clerks and my crossbench colleagues. For something that was so simple on the surface, this is proving to be a classic example of something that is layered with all sorts of challenges and considerations not only with regard to the question before the House and the following question, where we have a suspension motion to allow a private member to debate anything of their choice. That, I would hope, has the support of all members of this House, and I should not expect any division from any crossbench colleagues or anyone in this chamber. One of the parting comments of the previous speaker was asking for support from the crossbenchers to allow the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill to have a second reading. I think that is a no-brainer for the whole House. I would be very surprised if any member chose to vote against a private member's interests to bring forward something for consideration.

It is the next question before the House, with regard to voting on the substance of the bill, where there are some more layers and challenges. I listened closely to the Attorney-General's advice and the advice from government, and it only further accentuates the point that we have an issue before this parliament that is unresolved and needs to be resolved. As was mentioned again by the previous speaker, we have competing advice from institutions within this parliament with regard to whether this is or is not either an appropriation bill or a tax bill. We need to sort out the question of what is or is not a money bill. We are here in this 43rd parliament for 2½ more years and we can expect many private members to bring forward all sorts of issues, as is their right in a parliament that is alive, and we need to resolve this question, particularly the boundaries and the grey areas of what is and what is not a money bill. This has obviously been a historical dispute between the two chambers of the parliament and it is proving itself now to be a weapon of politics in relation to activities within this chamber. It needs to be resolved.

To emphasise the point, the member for Mackellar has brought forward the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011, as is her right. Yet, in seeking advice, we do get conflicting advice. The member for Mackellar I think somewhat unfairly verballed the clerks in accusing them of drafting the bill and then changing their mind. In defence of the clerks, they will draft anything that a member of parliament wants to bring into this chamber, as is their right. When asked for advice from not just the government but also people such as me, seeking to clarify questions of constitutionality and whether a bill is or is not a money bill, we were provided advice that we can only take on face value as objective and as advice from people working in the parliament's and the nation's best interests. The advice that they have provided is that this bill can be captured as a money bill. Their advice is in some areas worth reading into the record, with the indulgence of the House.

There are several points in the advice received. The first is that there is a standing appropriation provision in the original act—the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992—that appropriates funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to make payments on behalf of employees to superannuation funds in the event that the employer does not meet their obligation under the act to pay the necessary superannuation contribution. If this happens, the Australian Taxation Office in turn issues the employer with a debt notice equivalent to the amount of superannuation guarantee payment. Thus it is reasonable to assume that the net effect on government's fiscal position is probably negligible. Nevertheless, technically the proposed bill, if enacted, could give rise to payments under the standing appropriation. Thus if it is not the eventual net position but rather the fact that payments would be made from the standing appropriation that matters, it could be argued that a Governor-General's message would be necessary to cover this eventuality.

The second point relates to standing order 179, which provides:

a. Only a Minister may initiate a proposal to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge.

And there are some considerations in that regard that point towards this bill being within the scope of a money bill. The advice from the clerks also suggests that both these issues could be described as technical matters. However, they could give rise to a situation where there is a breach of the principle that the financial initiative rests with government if the need for an appropriation and the imposition of a charge arose as a consequence of the bill being enacted. In light of this, again the advice suggests that an amendment be moved in the consideration in detail stage of the bill that may address some of these issues. That is the advice, on the one hand, from the very good clerks of this chamber—who are apolitical, independent of thought and try to steer a path for legislation in the nation's interests. At the same time, advice has been provided from the Parliamentary Library. I gather that was sought by the member for Mackellar, and I thank her for that. That is conflicting advice indicating that, no, this is not an appropriation bill, because it does not directly appropriate revenue or money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government and nor is it a tax bill because it does not change the scope of any charge. I am happy to make those two pieces of conflicting advice available to the House or to any member of the chamber.

The point is, we need to resolve this question of what is or is not a money bill before we get into the form and substance and issues around ageism and superannuation reform. They are all very noble causes, and I understand the government is looking to bring in substantial reform and I welcome and support that, and I also look forward to participating in debate around that soon. I also congratulate the member for Mackellar for identifying the issues in regard to ageism generally and the need for those in a workforce that is ageing to be able to receive the same rights and entitlements as anyone of any age in that workforce.

Having said that, if we are going to get down to the form issues I think there is a cost to business that I would like to see some more details on. I would be happy to continue the conversation past today and, as well, I would hope that the member for Mackellar and the Assistant Treasurer, who is in the chamber and who I think has carriage of superannuation reform, could actually have a meeting of the minds sometime soon and see whether this issue can be plugged into the overall direction of superannuation reform that will be in place in the next six months, I hope.

The way I read what is going to happen is that we will all support a suspension of standing orders and then we will be considering the substance of the bill. I will not be supporting the bill itself, because of the advice primarily from the clerks in this chamber. But I do flag that we are getting to the point where this is one of the last times this will happen unless we can resolve this issue of defining a money bill and defining clearly the relationship between the lower house and the upper house and then get a clear pathway on this important question. I think we will be starting to look for a test case if the government does not take this on as an issue of importance and substance. With people using this obvious opportunity as a weapon of politics, I am sure that this case will arise sometime soon.

I would hope that, in good faith, the government does try to start a conversation with the other chamber, start a conversation with those who are wanting to get the right outcomes for parliamentary democracy, and then we can be making decisions not based on conflicting advice from various institutions all of whom work for this chamber. I will be supporting the suspension but not supporting the substance of the bill, and I hope this is an issue that can be taken on by this parliament in the broader sense about defining what is or is not a money bill.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me make it clear for everyone, because this does seem to be turning into another one of those Thursday morning specials, that when the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill comes before the House in substance, whether that is now or at some later stage, I and the Greens will be opposing it. We will not be opposing it on the grounds that it is a money bill or an appropriations bill; we do not agree with that argument that has been put by the government. The grounds on which it will be opposed will be fleshed out later but, in short, we believe the government has available to it a better solution for tackling this issue. We are concerned about potential tax implications and implications for the revenue in passing the bill as it is and, like the member for Lyne, we would want more discussion about what potential cost implications for employers—and that is despite being sympathetic to the underlying principle of the bill.

As far as the questions before the House today go, it is our understanding that, if there is support from the opposition for a suspension of the standing orders to allow a debate today, then that is the way we will vote as well. I notice that the bill is not listed on the Daily Program, so if it was the view of the private member proposing the bill that it was not scheduled to be voted on today then I believe, as a person who moves private member's bills, we have an interest in ensuring that the matter proceeds in an orderly fashion and that there is not the bringing on of votes in a way different from the expectations of those who brought the matter before the chamber. We will be wanting to make sure that there is proper opportunity for debate in accordance with the wishes of the mover of the bill but when it ultimately comes on we will not be supporting it—not because it is not a money bill, and we do not agree with that, but because we do not agree with the bill.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 21 August last year the 150 members of this parliament were fairly elected. It is our responsibility to make this parliament work and to work well, and for it to be a place where good public policy can be developed and become law. But we do have eating at our work the lingering question over what exactly is a money bill. We are seeing that again this morning. The questions that are now arising consistently about what is or is not a money bill are breeding instability and uncertainty, and that is wrong. I do call on the government to look at this matter afresh and to put in place mechanisms or processes or definitions or whatever is needed for this uncertainty to be done away with. We had such uncertainty with the changes to the youth allowance, we have uncertainty with the superannuation charge and there is the possibility of uncertainty over increases to defence pensions, if that legislation does come down from the Senate. It has become a political weapon. It is not healthy and it is not in the public interest. I therefore call on the government to address this matter so we do not have this issue time and time again, and I call on the opposition to act responsibly in this matter and not look for areas of public policy where we brush up against this and create such instability. This parliament must last three years. We have all been elected to sit in this place for three years. It is arrogant for anyone in this place to think we have a right to destroy this parliament—to pull it down and to go to an early election. That would not be in the public interest. It is in the public interest to make this parliament work.

On this specific bill, the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill, I applaud the member for Mackellar for her strident and ongoing efforts to end age discrimination in Australia. I think the fact that we currently have an age limit of 70—moving to 75, in fact, if a government initiative progresses—is still a form of age discrimination. I ask the government to look afresh at whether or not 75 is the right age for people to stop receiving mandatory employer superannuation payments. Personally, I see a case—and this will be something about which to lobby and perhaps to argue in this place in the future—for mandatory employer superannuation payments to not have an age limit; they should be paid indefinitely. We should encourage greater participation of older people in the workforce. In fact, we should celebrate it. There is no reason in my mind why someone who is competent at age 76 should not be a full and productive member of the workforce and their employer should not be expected to make employer superannuation payments. That is how I approach this. So I applaud the member for Mackellar for the work she is doing and that I hope she continues to do.

There is, though, the obvious problem of lack of warning for business if such an initiative were implemented straight away. I think the government has the settings right when it says that business should be given a couple of years to prepare for changes to superannuation arrangements. But at the end of the day the reason I will not support this bill is the ambiguity of whether or not it is a money bill. I have now seen a number of pieces of advice which have given completely different perspectives on whether this is a money bill. At least one piece of advice I received contained within its judgment a certain amount of ambiguity still. Personally, where there is ambiguity about whether something is or is not a money bill I will default to inaction—to not progressing it—because I think that is in the public interest.

To bring on a constitutional crisis would be the wrong thing to do. I do not want there to be a test case to resolve this. I want the government and the opposition to act responsibly and in the public interest to address this so we do not have to have a test case, and I do not want this to be the test case.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I close the debate relating to the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 and thank all those who have made a contribution to it. I particularly welcome the comments of the last speaker, the member for Denison, who outlined quite rightly that it is in the public interest for these issues to be resolved and for the parliament to serve its full term.

I take some contention with the comments of the member for Lyne. This is not an issue of a dispute between the houses. The way we deal with bills that might come from the Senate to this House was a previous issue. This bill originated in this House. This is a bill that, according to the member for Mackellar's own statements, repeated a number of times during her contribution to this debate, has an impact on government revenues. The member for Mackellar outlined repeatedly that a number of employees of ministers—that is, public servants—would be impacted by this legislation.

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

Every time they employ another 3,000 they have to pay.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar has herself outlined why this is a money bill. Money bills are specifically ruled out without an appropriation being recommended by a message from the Governor-General under section 56 of the Constitution and the procedure is reflected in standing order 180. This has applied regardless of who the government of the day is. Indeed, this is a procedure that protects the executive and protects the government in its ability to apply a budget. If this protection is not there, then there is no way that appropriate decisions that are fiscally responsible can be made because appropriations could be sought in isolation from the overall budget. This protection is needed if we are to have responsible economic policy in this nation.

I say with respect to all the members who have contributed to this debate that we have resolved our position. Our position is that we support the Constitution of Australia. Our position is that the Constitution of Australia was written with a great deal of foresight and common sense. Common sense suggests that they actually got it right. So it is very clear that it is possible for the House to pass motions expressing a view about what should happen, but it is not possible to pass legislation that has an impact on the budget. That is absolutely critical to the stability that the member for Denison, the member for Lyne and others spoke about as being so necessary. We have had attempts that were not tried during the last parliament, attempts to bowl up legislation that might, in isolation, be viewed by some members as having merit. There are a range of things I would like to see revenues spent on, but I understand that, at the end of the day, you have expenditures and you have revenues and they relate to each other. And we have a commitment to return to surplus by 2012-13.

So the position is very clear, I think. The government, in moving this resolution for the suspension of standing orders, gave full and proper notice. I know my office certainly advised the Manager of Opposition Business and the shadow minister, who is indeed here with full knowledge of what time this debate would take place today. So what has occurred is in accordance with the normal selection procedures.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

Are you saying the Manager of Opposition Business was not notified?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't notified until this morning.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning. That is what I said.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said last night. It is not in the blue.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The position was clear. It was discussed at the Selection Committee again last night.

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

We were told last night it wasn't coming on.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By whom? That is not true.

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

It is not in the Notice Paper.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I identified it and we rang and gave notice this morning to the Manager of Opposition Business following very clear established process. The government supports the suspension. The government does not, however, support this bill being able to proceed. I understand, Mr Speaker, that you wish to consider the matter, but I respectfully submit, in support of the Attorney-General's submission on this matter, that these are indeed critical issues for the appropriate operation of the budget. I commend the resolution to the House.

Question agreed to.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call on the order of the day, I would like to say that I have appreciated the debate. It was not a debate on a suspension that we would describe as normal, but I think the matters before us are very important. I assure the House that I will decouple the substantive matter before the House from the procedural matters and I will look at those procedural matters because they are of great moment. They are very important matters, a fact which has been acknowledged, I think, by participants in the debate on the suspension.

There was reference made to opinions that members have received. On that basis, I would prefer it if the House were to allow me to go away, take on board those submissions and come to a more considered point of view. As has been mentioned in the debate, there could be options available to me, one of which could be that I rule that no further discussion take place. That would be a very serious ruling and one that I would not wish to make without due consideration. Based on some of the comments that have been made I would note that, pleasantly—because this is a matter that is within the province of the House—we can actually decide. It is not a matter of resolving a dispute between the houses. But the core principle about the application of the definitions of bills still stands. I thank members who have made comments about that. It is my intention to call on the matter and I would hope that I could have the cooperation of the House in then having the matter immediately adjourned.