Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance because I spoke against Senator Lambie's original bill when it came into this place. My reasons for opposing her Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill then have not changed. It is important that we do get some facts on the record. I do not for a moment doubt Senator Lambie's absolute commitment to the men and women of Australia's Defence Force, or the commitment of those on both sides of this chamber. Those men and women do an amazing job serving our country and they do deserve fair pay. In many instances the pay rises that they have had have been more than competitive with rises in other arenas in the public sector. To labour the point about Senator Lambie's pay rises for politicians, if you exclude structural adjustments, where we have seen the incorporation and rolling in of various entitlements into a single wage structure, there has only been a 0.4 per cent differential between politicians' and ADF pay. So we have to get the facts on the record.

The purpose of this place is to pass legislation, to pass bills, to reduce complexity and make government much more efficient in many instances. The bill that Senator Lambie is seeking passage of is unnecessarily complex and it does have a number of consequences, which were highlighted to Senator Lambie when it was debated in the Senate. They were probably unintended consequences. The bill may appear straightforward, but it is actually not straightforward. There are many and varied differentials in the comparisons between parliamentarians' and ADF remuneration and entitlements. A case in point is that the ADF has more than 1,300 pay points across more than 500 employment categories,. The bill that Senator Lambie introduced did not link them in a successful manner and many of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal functions would have been negatively affected under her proposal.

Of course pay in the ADF is not linked to inflation movements up or down, and the government requires pay rises for ADF members to follow the same general pacesetting principles that apply to other government employees and to the wider community. I made the point then, and I make it again now, that over the past decade ADF wage rises have outpaced inflation by over 13 per cent. Under the government's current policy of providing a two per cent pay rise to ADF personnel for each of the next three years, once again ADF pay will both exceed current parliamentary pay increases and increase more than the expected CPI.

ADF pay is currently determined by the independent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, in accordance with section 58H(2) of the Defence Act 1903. This was formally established in 1984 under the then Hawke Labor government. It comprises three members: a president, who has to be a deputy president of the Fair Work Commission; a person experienced in industrial relations matters; and a person who was but is no longer a permanent member of the forces.

They determined the first pay case in 1985. The ADF is represented before that tribunal by the Defence Force Advocate. In accordance with section 55 of the Defence Act this person is skilled in industrial relations matters and has intimate knowledge as to the nature of service in the Defence Force. That is important because it means that there will always be a contemporary perspective put into the Defence Force remuneration determinations. That means it is not subject to the whims and whines of people in this place, who may have a longstanding knowledge or history; also, as they leave the Defence Force their knowledge cannot be as intimate as it was when they were there. I think it is very important that we maintain the current circumstance where those who have a thorough understanding of the Defence Force, the nature of service and the determinations can make these assessments. Thus, I would advocate continuing with the current scheme.

The nature of military service is in itself unique. These are people who voluntarily enlist. They do it for myriad reasons. I do not know a single service man or woman who says they joined up for the money, because it is perhaps not the most lucrative career. But it is an absolutely vital career for us and we are very, very thankful that they are prepared to serve in whatever capacity, whether at home or abroad, defending our freedoms, keeping us safe and providing an essential service. As valued employees, as valued service people and as valued servants of the country they deserve a fair go—absolutely. No-one is going to quibble about that. But the fairest and best method for them to get a fair go, to get appropriate remuneration, is through an independently assessed criteria, not subject to linking it to inflation or another measure. I think that is the most positive thing we can do for the service men and women who do such a sterling job for us.

Returning to the bill, I recall the explanatory memorandum was very brief but contained a number of factual inaccuracies, which I believe were explained to the Senate at the time. However, if you are going to perpetuate factual inaccuracies and then continue with your bill, I think we are entitled to repeat them and say, 'They're wrong.' Because if you cannot rely on the integrity of what is said in this place in respect of legislation we will face some great difficulties.

The EM states, if I recall, that members of the ADF have their pay assessed arbitrarily by the Minister for Defence, under section 58B, and the minister's decision cannot be appealed. As I have made it very clear, that is actually not true. The Minister for Defence does not make determinations on ADF pay. In relation to appeals, the Defence Act actually provides mechanisms for the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal to review ADF pay.

The powers of the minister in respect of ADF remuneration under section 58B of the Defence Force Act relate to determinations regarding conditions of service for ADF members, other than salary. These include housing benefits, relocation support, leave entitlements, family healthcare programs and other non-salary allowances.

If you cannot get that right, do you really think we should be pushing through a bill, through the other place, that I would argue will not only disadvantage service men and women but is actually entirely flawed in its premise and in the explanatory memorandum. This is the great problem and that is why these longstanding remuneration arrangements should be maintained rather than being at the whim of some well-meaning senator.

I am very fortunate in that I have the power of a large party organisation behind me, in which we can distil the essence of good and bad policy. I can rely on my colleagues with respect to their unfettered loyalty in supporting my goals and aims through the parliament. Senator Lambie, unfortunately, does not have that same support network, if you will, so we need to ensure that we can get decent legislation through this place that is accurate. (Time expired)