Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make a few remarks in conclusion. The amendment seeks to add a number of other category recipients to the bill. For the sake of clarity I should say that the number of pensioners who will be affected by the provisions of this bill is 928,834 Australians at a cost of $1.45 million. Senator Evans, in his comments, waxed lyrical about how difficult it was to make provision of the kind that we seek to make in this bill. But, clearly, it is a bit rich for Labor to complain about people who are being provided for in this bill when the Labor Party is not providing for anyone at all. It is very clear, and the chamber should be clear, that the Labor Party does not propose to provide for anyone at all. The coalition propose to provide for single age pensioners and, in my concluding remarks in the second reading debate, I set out the rationale for that. Having said that, it is very clear that we as the coalition agree that all pensioners deserve to have consideration of their position. We regard the additional payment of $30 per week as very much a first step to relieve single age pensioners, who are amongst the most vulnerable that we currently have of the people who are in receipt of pensions.

I also outlined the rationale in relation to not at this point including disability support pensioners. That is not to say that they are not worthy, but most of them are entitled to some additional payment. We think that, in all the circumstances, we need to have a comprehensive response, and we will continue to develop a comprehensive response to include all pensioners. We will keep this under urgent review, and we will continue to have regard to the ongoing needs of all categories of pension. I think there ought to be an acknowledgement in this chamber that all pensioners are certainly worthy of further attention by the government. We will be stepping into the breach as we develop a comprehensive policy after this, we think, very important first step to provide some relief for the most needy of single age pensioners.

I think it is also important to say, although it is in the explanatory memorandum, that the coalition takes a different view from the government as to the constitutional validity of the private bill. We have the view that there is no barrier to the introduction of this bill in the Senate. Section 53 of the Constitution provides in part that:

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.

But a bill to increase the rate of age pensions does not need to contain an appropriation of money—and this is where we part company with the government. Age pensions and other entitlements under the Social Security Act 1991 are automatically paid under a special appropriation of indefinite duration and unlimited amount in section 242 of the Social Securities Administration Act 1999. Any increase in pensions is paid for under that appropriation without any necessity for any further appropriation to be made.

If the government has advice that differs and takes issue with what we say is the constitutional validity of being able to introduce this bill under the standing appropriation of the parliament, please bring it forward. Is there any reason why the rest of us should not be enlightened on any difficulty of a legal kind that the government contends? If there is such advice, let us see it and let us have a discussion about it. That is my advice. Aided and abetted by my own background, I must say that it seems to me to be a sound basis upon which this bill has been introduced.

With those remarks I have to say that we will not be supporting the amendment, even though we do think that the sentiment behind it has merit. We think that the sensible way to proceed is to at least pick the category which we have. It has a rationale to it, and it will assist the most vulnerable and most needy of single age pensioners.

Question negatived.