Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been reports this week about the member for Dawson's travel to Manila, his having racked up almost 300 days overseas in the last four years. A lot has been said about the member for Dawson's judgement. I'm going to let others focus on that. I'm more concerned about the double standards at work. This week, the government decided that the final sitting week before Christmas would be an excellent time for them to introduce a cut to pension payments. All government MPs voted for it, breaking a promise that they made to their electors not six months ago. The new rule, originally drafted by the Prime Minister when he was Treasurer, applies to people who go overseas for more than six weeks at a time. If they're away for more than six weeks, they have their pension cut. Clearly this impacts on migrant retirees more than anyone else—the elderly nonnas and nonnos who return home to visit their families, perhaps for one last time while they're still able.

So we have to ask ourselves this question: why is it okay for the member for Dawson to represent his electorate from the suburbs of Manila for 300 days in the last four years without penalty? Why is it okay for the member for Dawson to be overseas for an average of 10 weeks a year without loss of pay, but, for a pensioner, it's not? This is hypocrisy at its finest and it's a betrayal of trust.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. I call the member for Sturt.