Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Again I draw the attention of the chamber—it does not need me to draw attention to it; I guess everyone can see—that this is an incredible situation, where the mover of the amendment is not even prepared to explain what the amendment is, and the minister is not prepared to answer any questions about it. I find this absolutely incredible. Hopefully this is not an indication of how this chamber is going to work into the future. I find it very strange that when the Greens bring in quite ridiculous amendments to most bills that everyone else approves, ministers sit here for hours answering irrelevant and ridiculous questions; yet reasonable questions about what this might cost or what saving might be go ignored and unanswered.

There are questions of the Labor Party on why they vote one way. The Labor Party are not prepared to justify why they vote this way. They are not prepared to say that I am wrong when I suggest they do it because there are four Labor prime ministers who benefit. And I know that the Labor Party are pretty good at this. They will always make sure that, somewhere or other, they are looked after. Mr Craig Thomson, of course, is a case in point. Remember him? He was a member of parliament for some time. I am not sure if he is in jail now, whether he was or whether he is about to be. My namesake in New South Wales, Ian Macdonald—remember him? He was alleged before ICAC to be involved in criminal activities. The Labor Party closed ranks behind them. Remember the general secretary of the Labor Party in New South Wales—who happens to be in this chamber now? Remember how he looked after Mr Craig Thomson? He made sure his legal bills were paid and supported him at every step of the way. Yet, we accept that as being par for the course of the Labor Party.

Perhaps it was a plea that I really did not expect an answer to. But why are the Labor Party voting the way they are? I think there has only been one speaker from the Labor Party, and that was the very first speaker who spoke, I think, for about five minutes. They are not prepared to even justify to the Australian community why they think retrospectivity is good for a group of people—most of them Labor people, I might say—but not good for former prime ministers. I would just be curious as to the policy process within the Labor Party as to why this happened and how they can possibly justify this.

I suspect that the fact that the Labor Party cannot justify it and that, I regret to say, my own government chooses not to publicly justify it seems to suggest that perhaps there is not a justification. Perhaps it is just the populist cycle we are going through now. Perhaps it has spooked the Labor Party and the government. In my second reading speech I gave examples of where, in the past, Labor leaders and Liberal leaders have, when running low in the polls, always cut away entitlements. I demonstrated earlier how it made not one iota of difference. Mr Latham lost, Mr Howard lost, Ms Gillard lost, Tony Abbott lost. It does not make any difference. That is why I am urging senators to do what is right, not what is populist.

Whilst we hate politicians and hate former politicians particularly, they had an entitlement that this parliament is retrospectively taking from them. It is like someone walking into your house—it is not a very good example, but it is the same sort of thing—and taking your gold ring. It is something that has been yours for years and that you have been entitled to. Someone comes and takes it away. You would be upset if that happened. But, because it is former parliamentarians who do not have a voice here and do not have an opportunity to have their say, that seems to be okay. I look forward to the day, of course, in the future when the same thing will happen to the current group of parliamentarians. Mark my words: it will. But it just does seem that because it is popular does not mean it is right.

Again, I ask the minister—I will not even bother with Senator Rhiannon; she probably does not understand way she has moved the amendment—to explain at least the financial aspects of this deal and what wonderful savings we are going to be making for the budget. Remember, we have a budget that, if there had not been a change of government, under the Labor Party it would have run out to some $700 billion. That is what Labor and the Greens did. They spent everyone's money, not theirs. It is easy to spend everyone else's. We have a budget running out to $700 billion. So we do have to try and curtail expenditure. This is why I would be curious to know what the real figure is on the savings that the decisions made by this parliament are going to do to the current budget. And I think the current budget is around $400 billion, isn't it? What are the savings going to do? You cannot say you are doing what is right. I suspect it is the case—although I will wait for the answer. But you cannot say you are doing it to save money.

Again, I refer you to all of the authors, but particularly to His Honour Justice Gageler and his interpretation of what is happening here. This is what happens in totalitarian countries. You know—you do not have a right to freedom, you do not have a right to property; it is the right of the totalitarian government to come and take what is yours. But, fortunately, we are not in a totalitarian government; we are in a democratic government where people do have rights. I am so disappointed that this parliament has not respected people's rights, no matter if, as I say, it is a group as unpopular as former politicians. It is a great disappointment to me that this parliament does not respect rights and is prepared to trade them away.

I will leave with that. I hope that the minister may be able to answer the questions. If he is not prepared to justify why former parliamentarians should not have this right—it is okay to take it away respectively but not for former prime ministers—and if he is not prepared to explain that, that is fair enough. But at least can we get the figures.

The CHAIR: The question is that item 11 of schedule 1 stand as printed.