Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—The Labor government treat the issue of income and support for pensioners very seriously. That is why we are deeply depressed and disappointed by the opposition’s failure to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves. We know that a week and a half ago the opposition said this was going to be their priority in parliament. A whole week went by when they fought among themselves over their internal machinations, and nothing occurred for pensioners other than two rather poor questions asked of me in the parliament. That was the extent of the effort. I take on board what Senators Brown, Fielding and Xenophon have said and indicate that it is not our intention to debate or delay decision making by debating a suspension. It seems to us that that does not assist the Senate. The government is focused on trying to get its budget measures through this parliament. The opposition have embarked on a schoolboy tactic of trying to talk out the second reading of the debate indefinitely so we do not get to the substance of the issues, I think out of fear that they may not get what they want out of the committee stage of the bill. Their behaviour is unexplainable and inexcusable.

The government want to get on with government business; we want to get on with passing the budget at a time when Australia is under enormous external financial pressure and the instability of international markets is putting pressure on all economies. We want our budget passed, we want our surplus maintained and we want to have the capacity to provide the protections for Australians—families, pensioners and others—that are necessary. So, we will not delay the Senate by arguing the detail of suspension, although this is an unprecedented move by the opposition. Never before has there been a suspension moved by an opposition to bring on an appropriations bill. Our view is that it is clearly not constitutional. I know the Clerk has provided alternative advice; but we have advice from other sources. With all due respect to the Senate Clerk, he is not infallible. On occasions he may be wrong. On this occasion we argue that he is wrong. We all know that this bill, if passed by the Senate, will not be debated in the House of Representatives. We support the advice that for it to occur in that way is unconstitutional.

This is nothing but a stunt but the issue at stake, support for pensioners, carers and those on disability and veterans pensions, is important. Look at the whole approach of the opposition here: first of all it was a bill only about pensioners that ignored veterans, carers and those on disability pensions. Today they have thrown in veterans as a sort of afterthought. But this is clearly a stunt rather than a serious contribution to the issues that are at stake here. The government have outlined a serious piece of work to try to come to terms with the financial pressures pensioners are under. I indicate on behalf of the government that we are prepared to have the debate on the substantive issues rather than on suspension because we actually want to get on with real government business. The opposition ought to think about their position in seeking to delay budget bills. We have put a proposition that we will sit extra hours. We are keen to get on with it. We are already in late September and we are still debating budget bills. The opposition is still refusing to let us debate the questions that were contained in the May budget. This is not responsible.