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

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent notices Nos 1 and 2 private members' business, relating to the disallowance of the following, being called on immediately and considered together, with separate questions being put on each at the conclusion of the debate:

(1) the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Determination 2014 made under subsections 258(4) and (5) of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, and

(2) the Veterans' Children Education Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Instrument 2014 made under subsections 117(2) and (3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent notices Nos 1 and 2 private members' business, relating to the disallowance of the following, being called on immediately and considered together, with separate questions being put on each at the conclusion of the debate:

(1) the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Determination 2014 made under subsections 258(4) and (5) of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, and

(2) the Veterans' Children Education Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Instrument 2014 made under subsections 117(2) and (3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

The proposal of the government to target cuts to the orphans of veterans is a terrible mistake, and this is an arrogant government which can never admit that it is ever wrong. I understand that deep down there would be many members of the government who probably think: 'My goodness! Why are we doing this to a group of 1,200 orphans?'

The Prime Minister used an expression earlier today about 'the figures which reverberate around the House'. Well, let me talk about some figures which reverberate around this House: $211 going to 1,239 orphans or children whose parents have either been severely incapacitated or died in the service of this country. That is the number that matters to this side of the House: $211 going to 1,239 people, kids, which would cost the government $260,000. And the number which reverberates around that side of the House shows that they are a government of the wrong priorities. They would say, and they would have you believe, that somehow there is more integrity in providing millionaires with $75,000 each extra, which they have not asked for, rather than giving the children of veterans $211.

The reasons that we seek that this be disallowed are (1) the decision is just not worth the pain you are inflicting on people and (2) it is a shifty decision. It is a decision which, despite too much protestation of the Prime Minister, who could not be bothered staying in the parliament to defend his attack on veterans' orphans—too busy, no doubt, looking for more gold plated schemes for people who do not need the money—is a shifty measure. The third thing is—

Ms Henderson interjecting—

Oh, there is the member for Corangamite. She has not fought for the job of any worker at Alcoa or Blue Circle; now she has plenty of advice to give. You just wait till the next election. The third reason why this is a bad decision is that it is poor priorities.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Corangamite will desist!

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. These are poor priorities. What I do not understand is what sort of twisted priorities could come up with the idea—and I can just imagine them high-fiving in their depleted Expenditure Review Committee. Why on earth are we making a decision where we will give $5.5 billion in a paid parental leave scheme which—

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

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a debate about why standing orders should be suspended—in other words, why there should be no more debate on the government's program until this matter has been dealt with. This is a debate about a suspension of standing orders; it is not a debate about the actual measure that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. I have been very generous for the last four minutes, but he needs to actually explain why standing orders should be suspended.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for the point. When we look at why—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that is good, because I am upholding it.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is making no attempt whatsoever to explain why standing orders should be suspended. Instead he is debating the substance of the motion that he wants to debate if standing orders are suspended. He is putting the cart before the horse.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the Leader of the House that it has become a tradition in this place that a wider interpretation is given on suspension motions. But there is still a requirement on the person moving the motion to refer to the suspension and the reason for the need for the suspension. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to do so.

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

This decision to suspend standing orders is important because we believe fundamentally that veterans' orphans should not be political targets of this government. I get that the government has different priorities from those of many Australians. I get that. But when this government can dream up a scheme which takes $260,000 from 1,200 veterans' orphans, this is a government who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The reason we should suspend standing orders is that this proposition on veterans' orphans that the government is carrying out is a sign of a bigger malaise in this government. This is a soulless government who will undermine everything that we hold dear in this country. That is why we should suspend standing orders. They have never seen a group of the vulnerable that they are not interested in kicking. They will pick on the unemployed, they will pick on the disability pensioners. They will undermine Medicare, they will attack the minimum wage. This is why standing orders should be suspended. They are not interested in equal pay for women, they are not interested in supporting a more positive relationship with our near neighbours. This is a government who deserve to have this motion disallowed, and that is why we should suspend standing orders.

We all know that they have got 900 pages of cuts which they will not reveal to us—900 pages of the same DNA as that which will see the government attack veterans' orphans. That is why standing orders should be suspended. The real problem with this issue is that we have a government who is not interested in standing up for all Australians. They are only interested in standing up for some Australians. On the issue of the veterans' orphans they say that veterans' children will be receiving payments anyway and they will not notice this $211 gone. The only people who could say that are people who have never tried to make ends meet on the existing pensions and entitlements and who believe that $211 is nothing at all. They are wrong. It is something.

I believe that when Australia's defence personnel serve overseas they should have the peace of mind of knowing that when they come home—or if they come home severely injured or totally and permanently disabled or, indeed, if they make the supreme sacrifice—that they have a government and a parliament who have their back. There is no test in this country which this government can pass about priorities when it says, 'We've got your back but, by the way, we're going to chop $211 from your children who you love very much.' This is not adequate policy from this government. That is why we should suspend standing orders.

I make this point: if the children of parents who have made significant and supreme sacrifices for this country cannot trust a government, how can the rest of us? The problem with this government, and the reason we should suspend standing orders, is that they have the wrong priorities. They want to whittle this country down, they want to divide this country, they want to attack the vulnerable, and they are too arrogant to admit when they get it wrong. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the member for Watson the call.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is important that we suspend standing orders on this issue, because it is important that every member opposite is forced to vote personally on whether or not they want orphans of veterans to be able to receive this payment. We have heard time and again that somehow this was an election commitment but not one of them has been able to produce the brochure they provided to their electorate telling people that this is what they had in store for the orphans of veterans. It is important that we set aside the time in the parliament to force people into the parliament who have walked out. The Prime Minister is so proud of his policy on this that he left the chamber the moment the debate commenced. Almost all of the front bench made sure that they cleared out the moment this debate started to take place. By suspending standing orders and by making sure that this comes to a vote, we will make sure that they come back into this chamber in a way that will stand on their record forever, in a way that their electorate will know about and in a way that they will not be able to hide from the veterans communities in each of the electorates that are represented on the other side of this chamber.

The priorities here are breathtaking, and it is important that we set aside the business of the House to bring this issue to a head. Never once during the election campaign did any of those members opposite say—there is not a quote that anyone has been able to refer to—that they were going to cut the entitlements for orphans of veterans. We are talking about people whose parents have died defending this nation and they are going to have their benefits cut—for an amount of money that equals four highly-paid women receiving paid parental leave under the Prime Minister's gold-plated scheme. You will not find a more breathtaking error in priorities than what the government is doing here. Those opposite must not be allowed to avoid the situation where their name has this issue attached to it on the record of this parliament. Hansard records everybody who votes each way and it is recorded forever. Those opposite will never again, after today, be able to claim that somehow they are friends of veterans.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you can talk! You are a disgrace!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And to hear that minister opposite laughing! I will tell you: there is not one orphan receiving this payment who is laughing. There is not one member of the veterans community who is laughing about this issue. Not one person who is actually hurt by this issue would see the humour that the minister opposite sees in this issue. I cannot think of an issue of priorities more outrageous than this. In the scheme of the total budget we are talking about a payment of around a couple of hundred dollars for each person affected. We are talking about a total of 1,200 Australians who are impacted on by this. Of the decisions that are made by the Expenditure Review Committee this is not one that is going to make a significant difference to the bottom line. But if it were to make a significant difference then the Paid Parental Leave scheme, the gold-plated Paid Parental Leave scheme of the Prime Minister, is there waiting to provide the savings measure. Only four people affected would provide the savings which would allow this measure to continue.

We see those opposite try to wrap themselves in the flag and claim that they are the patriots of this parliament. Those opposite should be willing to publicise what they are doing on this issue, and no-one should pretend that this is somehow wrapped up in the same decision as the mining tax. The fact that there is the disallowance motion on the Notice Paper right now means that this issue can be dealt with in isolation and those opposite when they vote will have the opportunity to deal with this issue and this issue alone. If they still want to pursue what they want on the mining tax, this debate will not make a difference to that. But it will make an extraordinary difference in the message that this parliament sends to the veterans community of Australia and will make a very significant difference to the record that hangs around the heads of those opposite for the rest of their parliamentary careers.

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

Standing orders should not be suspended and the government's agenda and program for the day should be allowed to continue as was planned, for a number of very important reasons. Firstly, this motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business is a sheer stunt. Secondly, there was absolutely no preparation for this motion whatsoever in question time. Labor spent the entire question time talking about every other subject until the final question. You would have thought if it was so important that standing orders be suspended that this was a subject that would have taken up the entirety of question time from the Labor Party. You would have thought that if they were so outraged and so offended and regarded this as the No. 1 issue that requires the government's agenda to be put on hold for the rest of the afternoon, they would spend all of question time building for the suspension motion, as we used to in opposition when we thought something was that important. Instead, Labor waited until about 3.04 pm to ask their first question about this subject and then, trying to gather the necessary outrage within a matter of about a minute and a half, the Leader of the Opposition launched this extraordinary suspension motion. It is not my responsibility to give the opposition advice on how to run tactics from opposition, but I would give them some advice. I think the Manager of Opposition Business is not serving them very well—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker—

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

I am talking directly to the suspension of standing orders, Madam Speaker.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respect your ruling earlier, Madam Speaker, that there is some leeway given during suspension of standing orders. Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the House has strayed far and wide and is now reverting to issues—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I said there is no point of order. The minister has the call.

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

He cannot simply try to disrupt the debate with constant points of order. It is quite clear to the House and anybody listening, though I note we are not broadcasting, that what I am explaining to the House is the context in which the suspension of standing orders should be moved if it was so important that the opposition believe that the government's program should be suspended for the rest of the afternoon. Quite obviously if the Labor Party thought that this was the most important issue of the day it should have been the subject of question time, building to a suspension of standing orders. I make the point that Labor's tactics have never been good but on this particular day are spectacularly bad.

Why should standing orders not be suspended? Because there are very important matters that need to be debated this afternoon in the House. I for one was looking forward to the speech from the member for McMahon on the government's attempts to wind back investor protection for consumers seeking financial advice, which he regarded apparently as a matter of public importance needing to be debated. Instead, the Manager of Opposition Business thinks that the member for McMahon's speech is not as interesting as I was looking forward to listening to it because he wants to suspend standing orders to delay our attempts to get to that matter of public importance.

On the program for the afternoon are bills like the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014. What a spectacular own goal for the Labor Party to move a suspension motion today to stop that bill being debated—to delay it further, potentially to delay it too long for it to be properly implemented—which would benefit 57,000 veterans in Australia, who stand to gain the same indexation mechanism as that which exists for the age pension. We think that is very important and that is why we put it on the agenda to be debated today. But the Labor Party does not think so. The Labor Party thinks a stunt such as this is more important than the 57,000 veterans who have waited four years for this measure to be passed. They think it is more important than debating the DFRDB (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014. It speaks volumes for the priorities of the opposition that they always elevate politics above good policy. For the 57,000 veterans waiting to hear that this bill has been passed and gone to the Senate and for every one of those people listening or reading the Hansard in the future, know this: Labor wanted to delay the DFRDB (Fair Indexation) Bill; in fact, they wanted to stop it from happening today and potentially never happen. So a spectacular own goal.

They also want to delay the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The Green Army is a very good public policy measure by this government promised before the election. It is being looked forward to in the community and will be a tremendous asset to repairing our environment in a very practical way. It is one of the measures the government has introduced as a direct action part of our policy for better environmental outcomes, for combating climate change, for improving the area in which we live, the environment in which we live. But Labor think that this stunt they have moved today is a more important priority. That is why they want to suspend standing orders to delay the government's program for the rest of the afternoon. I happen to think that we should get on with introducing the DFRDB bill on fair indexation.

I think we should get on with debating the Green Army Program, because I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House, who were proud to promise the Green Army Program before the election, are looking forward to debating it, to allowing their colleagues to have a go as well on that subject, and to passing that bill and sending it to the Senate. Labor want to delay that bill further, because they would prefer to elevate politics over good policy.

Finally, the other example I will give is the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014, which we also want to debate and pass, because we want to take a hard line with people who gain their wealth through unexplained measures. We want to take a firm line to ensure that law and order is elevated in this country—but not Labor; Labor think political stunts should be elevated, that political stunts are more important than ensuring that the unexplained wealth and other measures bill is passed through this House.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is Labor's bill.

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

If it is Labor's bill, Member for Jagajaga, why don't you support it and pass it through the House?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do.

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

You have just confirmed how hopeless your tactics are. If you are still supporting that bill—in spite of all of your own policies from the last parliament that you are rejecting and the ones you are rejecting in the Senate—why are you continuing to delay it through these kinds of stunts and pathetic tactics?

We cannot be lectured by the Labor Party on issues to do with veterans or anything to do with their families or their children. The member for Fadden has provided me with a very useful book, The Little Book of Labor's Defence Backflips. Let me just go through them, because they highlight why this motion for a suspension of standing orders should not be carried.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no way in the world a member of the opposition would get away with this.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. I was very, very lenient indeed with both the mover and the seconder of the suspension order, and the Leader of the House has been exemplary in the way that he has dealt with the motion.

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

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely true. In fact, I have tried to show the opposition how to do a motion to suspend standing orders—of which I did many in the last parliament. I am trying to give you a master class on how to do it, because you need a bit of help. I allowed the Leader of the Opposition much latitude in ranging over this subject. I would say to the opposition that the Rudd Labor government said that they would ‘maintain a generous military superannuation system in recognition of the importance of the ADF and the immense responsibility placed on personnel in securing and defending Australia’—but 'Labor has never, and will never, fairly index military superannuation pensions.' I am showing how the hypocrisy of the Labor Party should not be rewarded by—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the House is not being relevant to the resolution before us.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is being entirely relevant to the motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I am explaining why this suspension should not be carried—because of the rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party. For example, they said:

Federal Labor will continue to focus on maintaining high recruitment and retention levels in the ADF.

Only problem is: Labor entirely cut the ADF Gap Year Program, a program which was particularly successful in recruiting women into the ADF. Labor said that they placed a high demand on people and their families and:

A Rudd Labor Government will reduce this burden and assist ADF personnel to manage the unique challenges they and their families face in serving the nation.

Only problem is: Labor cut trips home to single soldiers to see their families at Christmas. And on and on it goes. That is why standing orders should not be suspended.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.